221. Disability and Higher Education

Faculty, staff, and students with disabilities constantly have to negotiate when and if to disclose their disability status and whether or not to request accommodations. In this episode, Kat Macfarlane joins us to discuss the ADA and the experiences people with disabilities have in academia, including the burdens associated with accommodation requests.

Kat is a law professor at Southern University Law Center. She is a disability rights advocate, chairs the American Association of Law School Section on Disability Law, and co-founded an affinity group for disabled law professors and allies. Her work is published in the Fordham Law Review, the Alabama Law Review and Yale Law Journal Forum and many other journals.

Shownotes

  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • Twitter thread that prompted this podcast
  • Katherine A. Macfarlane, Disability Without Documentation, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 59 (2021). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol90/iss1/2
  • Ms. JD Blog Series
  • Dorfman, D. (2019). Fear of the disability con: perceptions of fraud and special rights discourse. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 1051-1091.
  • Studies on laptops and notetaking:
    • Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159-1168.
    • Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 753-780.
    • Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1300-1308.
    • Artz, Benjamin and Johnson, Marianne and Robson, Denise and Taengnoi, Sarinda, Note-Taking in the Digital Age: Evidence from Classroom Random Control Trials (September 13, 2017).
    • Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299.
    • Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. S. (2017). The impact of computer usage on academic performance: Evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military Academy. Economics of Education Review, 56, 118-132.
    • Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of computing in higher education, 15(1), 46-64.
    • Lang, James M. “The Distracted Classroom.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 13, 2017.
    • Patterson, R. W., & Patterson, R. M. (2017). Computers and productivity: Evidence from laptop use in the college classroom. Economics of Education Review, 57, 66-79.
    • Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2017). Logged in and zoned out: How laptop internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological science, 28(2), 171-180.
    • Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.
  • Accessing Higher Ground Conference
  • Mya on TikTok

Transcript

John: Faculty, staff, and students with disabilities constantly have to negotiate when and if to disclose their disability status and whether or not to request accommodations. In this episode we get a primer on the ADA and discuss the experiences people with disabilities have in academia, including the burdens associated with accommodation requests.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca: Our guest today is Kat McFarlane, a law professor at Southern University Law Center. She is a disability rights advocate, chairs the American Association of Law School Section on Disability Law, and co-founded an affinity group for disabled law professors and allies. Her work is published in the Fordham Law Review, the Alabama Law Review and Yale Law Journal Forum and many other journals. Welcome, Kat.

Kat: Hi, thanks for having me.

John: Today’s teas are… Kat, are you drinking tea?

Kat: You know, I have an English grandmother, who… may she rest in peace… would be embarrassed to learn that her granddaughter is drinking Perrier today. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Don’t worry, we’ve got you. We’ve got you. I have a tea that… I can’t remember what’s in my cup.

John: But there is a tea bag this time, right?

Rebecca: Yeah, there’s actual tea. I made a pot of tea. But I made it a while ago, and now I can’t remember what it is. It’s a black tea of some sort. I’m gonna have to go with that today, John. I really have no idea. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I have Twinings Christmas tea.

Rebecca: Oh, I had some of that earlier. So we invited you here today to discuss what it means to be disabled in higher education as both a student and as a faculty or staff member. You’ve written extensively about this subject in journal articles like “Disability Without Documentation,” and in your blog series for Ms. JD, and on Twitter. And in these spaces, you’ve identified yourself as a person with disabilities. Would you like to share a little more about that before we get started?

Kat: Yeah, absolutely. So I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis when I was 13 months old. So I’ve had RA, an autoimmune disease, my entire life, and I’ve been on very strong immunosuppressants my entire life. So, RA’s a joint disease… that alone makes me disabled but combined with the immunosuppressants I’m disabled in a variety of ways. Most of my disabilities play out as mobility impairments. However, unless you know what you’re looking for, or it happens to be a quite terrible day for me, in which I’m flaring, you’d likely wouldn’t know that I’m disabled. And I spent most of my life until my early 30s, being quite ashamed of what I was going through physically, really resisting the label of a person with disabilities. And no one really knew to the point where when I finally started talking and writing about it, friends from high school were shocked to learn what that’s an essential part of who I am.

John: To set the groundwork for the discussion, c ould you provide a bit of an overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Kat: Sure, the ADA, as it’s referred to in legal circles, was passed in 1990. It’s a piece of civil rights legislation, and it was a result of decades of activism by allies, but mostly by people with disabilities themselves. And so it was intended to make all aspects of American life open to people with disabilities. So that includes employment, things like airplanes, public buildings, and what we’re going to talk about today, places of higher education. So one important thing that the ADA does, it views disability through what we call the social model. So we don’t think of people with disabilities as broken or in need of fixing, they exist outside of any kind of medical model or diagnosis, rather, the ADA and the social model looks at spaces and barriers. And the goal is to remove them so that everyone, including people with disabilities, can find space to exist equally alongside their non disabled peers. The ADA has a pretty specific definition of disability. And I say specific, it’s what we use legally, but it’s meant to incorporate all kinds of disability. So the working definition that we use is a disability under the ADA is a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. So my RA is a disability under the ADA. If you’re high risk for COVID because of asthma, you are disabled under the ADA, which of course has become very, very relevant over the last year and a half.

Rebecca: In academia, the primary way we often talk about disability, kind of unfortunately, is through the lens of accommodations. Can you talk a little bit about accommodations, and maybe also how that doesn’t always follow the social model. [LAUGHTER]

Kat: Accommodations, the way to think about them, are adjustments that make the learning environment so no one’s getting an advantage through an accommodation. And oftentimes, people have to ask for accommodations for things that really should be in place already. So an accommodation might mean installing an extra wheelchair ramp, there should already be a wheelchair ramp into any place of public education, maybe providing material in Braille, allowing students to have absences automatically excused to the extent that they need medical treatment related to their disability. And in the context of testing, giving either extra time on a test or something that I always encourage my students to ask for when they deal with panic attacks, for example, to have breaks that are untimed. So when you’re in front of the tests, the clock keeps on running, but to the extent there’s something you’re dealing with physically, maybe the clock for your break is unlimited. Things like accessible bathrooms are not accommodations. Schools, public buildings (private schools as well), have to have accessible bathrooms in there, you shouldn’t have to wait for a person with disabilities to arrive on campus. Same thing with service dogs, no one that has a service dog should have to get permission by way of an accommodation, they’re very limited questions that you can ask someone with a service dog. In general, we want to encourage and facilitate people to be able to bring their service dog to any place that they need to get to. So again, I would think of accommodations as fairly straightforward adjustments that facilitate equality. And I say fairly straightforward, because most of them are incredibly cheap. The rare accommodation is expensive, and we think of them in terms of equality. But there’s also limits on them. So you only get a reasonable accommodation. If an accommodation would change the nature of the learning environment, if it would undo a pedagogical purpose for a particular exam, for example, those accommodations don’t have to be granted. The ADA doesn’t say any accommodation whatsoever. It says only those accommodations that are reasonable. And cost does come into play in determining whether an accommodation is or is not reasonable.

John: Many institutions require documentation for disabilities, and that can serve as a barrier. And you wrote about that in your blog earlier. Could you talk a little bit about some of the barriers that are introduced by the requirements for documentation?

Kat: Sure, documentation typically requires a person with a disability to get a doctor to sign off on the fact that they’re disabled. You’re not supposed to have to do this, if you have an obvious disability, a legal rule. However, employers, places of higher education are very reluctant to call any kind of disability obvious. And I say that at the top, because there’s all of this suspicion that surrounds the assertions of people with disabilities make, both about the fact that they are disabled, and the kind of accommodations that they require. So typically, if you’re a student who needs any kind of accommodation, maybe that includes using a laptop in class, I know we’ll talk about that in a few moments, you are likely going to have to go to a doctor’s appointment, get a doctor to examine you to confirm that you’re disabled. And the doctor often has to write, themselves, what sort of accommodations you need, which adds on this additional layer of complexity because, in my case my rheumatologist, obviously never went to law school, doctors I continue to see do not work as law professors. So there’s this very strange requirement that we asked medical doctors to make recommendations about spaces they’ve never been in. The best case scenario: that takes one appointment, the doctor believes you, they sign off. But, what are we doing to people when we require them to get medical documentation of disability? They have to take time off whatever they’re doing… job, usually… school… doctors don’t work on weekends or after hours, they work the same time that classes are held. You have to go to a doctor’s appointment, travel to get there and back. You might not have money for that kind of transportation as a student. Parking at medical facilities is very expensive, gas or transport, If you have to add that on. If you’re in a new city, and you have to see a new doctor, even if your diagnosis was confirmed like me at birth, I’ve often had to provide additional documentation that the chronic and degenerative illness I have, in fact, I still have. I make jokes like, “Oh, is there a cure for RA that I didn’t hear about?” In any event, if you’re in a new city and you’re seeing a new doctor, you’re probably not going to get that form during a first time appointment, right? And I understand that a doctor might want to see you again. But we’re sending students down this very complex, very expensive, very time consuming path. Are their absences excused? Who knows? Another point to make here is that when documentation of disability turns on a health care professional’s assessment of your disability, we are now sending people into a system, medicine, that we know to be racist, and we know to be sexist, and that we know to disbelieve, in particular, women of color’s assertions of their pain. That absolutely crosses over into what doctors think certain demographics are saying and whether they’re to be believed when they make representations about their disability. There’s no uniform documentation form that every single university or grad school or law school uses. So, you might have filled out a one-page form at your undergrad institution and it was relatively straightforward and then have to start all over again once you get to grad school and pay out all this money, just to get, what we’ve just mentioned, was a tool of equality.

Rebecca: So you’re starting to describe, Kat, doesn’t really sound like the social model.

Kat: [LAUGHTER] No, it’s so dependent on medicine. And not everyone with a disability has to have as many interactions with healthcare providers as I do, for example, right? You may use a mobility aid, you may use a wheelchair and have to see a doctor every year or even less frequently. On top of that, the intricacies of your everyday life and what you need help with, what’s difficult, or what’s easy, even the understanding that you absolutely should be in the workplace is something that a doctor often will not understand. And just as we know that there’s an incredible amount of sexism and racism in medicine, ableism [LAUGHTER] is a terrible problem to the point where people in wheelchairs often can’t get into doctors’ offices, because medical spaces aren’t accessible to them. So Rebecca, thank you for mentioning that. It’s a point that’s at the heart of my “Disability Without Documentation” paper. And so not only are we tracking back to an idea that disability only exists if a doctor says it’s there, but we’re also treating a person with disability as someone who has something wrong with them. And you have to go to a doctor because only they will possibly know how you might be able to exist at school or exist in the workplace.

Rebecca: So what other models can we advocate for that would reduce this burden and help institutions move more towards inclusion for students, but also for faculty and staff.

Kat: So, I think every school should audit its accommodation process, look at how many pages accommodations forms are, if they’re more than two, you’re already asking a lot of people with disabilities. If there is a documentation requirement, it should be minimal. Anyone that already has documentation that includes a diagnosis should not be required to get anything new. If someone is discovering that they have a disability, and they’re now in a very intense academic program that requires accommodation that they might have not needed before, if they have to go to a doctor, I think they should be able to go to the Student Health Center and it should be free of charge, and it should be an appointment that students can get after hours. We often speak of our disability services offices as a part of the university that advocates on behalf of students. I’m sure there are places like that. Typically they’re not though, right? They’re offices that accept forms and decide some part of whether students are entitled or not entitled to accommodations, but they don’t then take on any other kind of advocacy role. So as institutes of higher ed, we should think about: Well, who is supporting students? Do they have access to mentors? Are we able to put students and even faculty in touch with other people who have gone through the accommodations process and can give them advice about how to navigate it? And then in turn, is there a feedback loop back to the institution about how to make the process better? I would also assume we all need training about implicit bias, right? But, we often don’t talk about disability in that discussion. There’s this overarching suspicion about people with disabilities. And a friend of mine Doran Dorfman has written an article called “Fear of the Disability Con,” and he describes how the epidemic is Americans’ fear that people with disabilities are faking. That’s statistically what we can measure. People with disabilities don’t fake. There’s so much discrimination that you face as soon as you identify yourself as a person with disabilities that why would you? So, we need to step aside from that model and assume that people are telling the truth. When you assume that people are telling the truth, you have less bureaucracy involved, [LAUGHTER] in your accommodations process, less people need to like double check or fill out paperwork, or even receive or review paperwork to begin with. And then finally, I would say, whenever we’re talking about accommodations, or people with disabilities, we have to speak as though people with disabilities are in the room because they are, right? I’ve sat through so many faculty meetings, where accommodations come up, and students are vilified. At my last institution, someone from the disability services offices came and gave a presentation and the only images of people with disability used were children with disabilities on playgrounds. I countered that with a presentation of my own, but I felt like I didn’t exist in that conversation. It was an invitation to talk about people and to other them. So the way we discuss students with disabilities has to be very different than what we’re doing right now.

John: One of the ways in which disability issues may come up in the classroom is that there are a lot of faculty who will not allow the use of any technology produced in the last couple of centuries in their classroom. How can that serve as a barrier to students with certain types of disabilities?

Kat: Yeah, I have this conversation with law professors, I guess I have this fight. Like every August I’ll tweet something and say: Just a reminder, laptop bans are ablest. And then people debate their merit. When I talk about this, the first thing I say is people are for some reason enamored with these studies about how students learn better if they’re not on a laptop, to which I say: What about all the students with disabilities? What’s the data on their experience when they don’t fit into [LAUGHTER] whatever data set you’ve come up with? “Oh, yeah, I didn’t think about that?” “Well, they’re just a few of them”. Okay, so this is not a perfect study to begin with. Anyway, second, I don’t think professors always understand how complex getting an accommodation is. So let’s walk through a timeline. You’re a freshman, let’s say. You get your syllabus, maybe a week… best practices…[LAUGHTER] right before classes start… maybe the night before, and all of a sudden you see a laptop ban. No way will you ever have enough time to get an accommodation in place that allows you to use a laptop on the first day that you need it, for various reasons. Accommodations require this multi-step evaluation process. And I know of no school that as soon as a student asked for a particular accommodation, they’re, in the interim, granted that. This is something that I’ve advocated for my institution. In the legal context, we would call that a TRO or like a preliminary injunction where you grant relief for a shortened period of time, pending a more fuller evaluation. We don’t do that. We make disabled students sit there and suffer without the accommodations that they likely are going to get. So if you have a laptop and you have a student with a disability who gets that accommodation, what they’re going to have to go through is all that medical documentation loop that I talked about: have meetings with the Office of Disability Services, fill out the forms, wait for the accommodation to be granted. So all that time has been wasted and that student has been sitting in your classroom when they needed a laptop and have had to go without it. So I’ve heard a couple professors come up with their own, like ad hoc solution to this and I haven’t heard one that I’m really on board with yet. So some people say, “Well, if you have a legitimate disability, then I’ll let you use it…” to which I say: “Number one, how are you going to measure that?” That’s interesting, that word legitimate is strange. Number two, no student should have to disclose their disability to you to get what they are entitled to under the law. And again, this is where implicit bias comes into play. We have confidentiality provisions under the ADA, because Congress, we as a country, decided we needed certain aspects of disability to be kept confidential because of the fear of discrimination. So on a one-to-one basis, professors should not just be deciding that students can be forced to disclose their disability. So I think that doesn’t work. Now, let’s say six weeks into the semester, the student finally gets permission to use the laptop, let’s say it’s a seminar class of 12 students, one student’s using a laptop, all of a sudden, you have forced that student to disclose to their classmates and to the professor, that they have a disability. And so what I say to my colleagues is, now that you’ve heard that, I’m guessing you wouldn’t want a student to go through all of that process and jump through all those hoops. And you understand that that’s hurtful and discriminatory itself. Yes, yes, yes. So can we just do away with the bans? And they’re still reluctant, but I managed to convince a few people that at least where we are now it’s impossible to do it fairly.

John: And we should also add that some of the most popular studies that found that result did not fully control for self selection. And when there were controlled experiments, what’s often been found is that it is true that the students who are most likely to choose to use laptops are more likely to be distracted. But that seems to be an issue of the sample selection, rather than the type of modality that they’re using for note taking, and so forth. And in at least some studies, there is no significant difference when the choice of using a laptop or not, is an experimental condition that’s controlled in the experiment. So even that argument breaks down a bit.

KT: Yeah.

John: But the issue about disability is, I think, much more compelling, in any case.

Kat: I’m going to quote you, John. [LAUGHTER]

John: We can include a citation in the show notes too, of at least one or two studies that found that

Rebecca: So, people with disabilities are often subject to comments about how they’re so lucky to have an accessible parking placard so that they can park closer or have extra time on a test. And these comments are often meant to imply that an individual is unfairly getting special treatment. How do you respond? Or how would you coach others to respond to these aggressions?

Kat: It’s hard because it does really hurt. And I’ve gone through different moments of my life where it’s made me cry. I’ve had several people, including one person when I was in a law school parking lot, yell at me about using a disabled parking spot, and I had someone who I thought was a friend, tell me exactly that, that I was lucky. Now that I’m older, I think people are scared enough of me to not say things like that. What I would tell people to say in response, if they are at that place is to ask more questions to say things like, “Oh, really? Why is that? Do you think you need one too? Would you like me to talk to you about why I have one?” But again, it’s difficult, because I don’t think anyone should ever have to explain themselves. So the best answer I’ve ever heard is from a friend of mine named Jesus who drives a Porsche and used a disabled parking placard one six-month period when he was on crutches. People really don’t like to see people with disabilities driving nice cars or really, in general, having nice things. Like the assumption is, we’re supposed to be impoverished and grateful for public transportation, I suppose. But he’s done very well for himself. So one day, he was parked in a disabled spot, and he’s in a Porsche. And before you see him get out, you wouldn’t be able to see his crutches. And so some woman comes up to him and said, “This is a disabled parking spot. How dare you park here? This isn’t for you.” And so then he became very slow and dramatic, and took his crutches from his passenger seat and very slowly and dramatically placed them on the ground. And when he was finally standing upright, he looked at her and said, “Thank you concerned citizen.” [LAUGHTER] and they went on their merry way. He’s a character. And I have some friends with disabilities that when they get stared at, they’ll wave at people, or they’ll get closer to the person staring and say things like, “Oh, do I know you?” [LAUGHTER] …just to kind of like put it on them for being awkward. I also think it’s perfectly okay to get emotionally exhausted by these kinds of statements and to look for spaces, and for a lot of us with disabilities that is online, I have found community on social media that I never even knew existed. I think you should feel absolutely justified in expressing how hurtful those comments are. I think the more important thing in those situations is for allies to immediately speak up, and to call it out… to say, “You only need a disabled parking placard if you are having difficulty with something about getting into the building. Nothing about that is easy, and it’s also none of our business.” So if that can be nipped in the bud by someone else, rather than putting the emotional labor on the person dealing with the reason for the parking placard, that would be ideal. Most people say things to me when I’m on my own. I now am more comfortable standing up for myself. But there’s weird things that happen to you, as a woman with disabilities. There’s some physical safety issues that I have to be concerned with. If I know I’m working late at night, and there aren’t that many other people in the building, I might move my car out of the disabled parking spot into another spot so that people don’t know that the only person in the building is a person with disabilities, which is bad that I have to do that… so I take some extra precautions, I would encourage everyone if they ever feel comfortable getting to the place, to hold their head up high, and to know that their life is too difficult already as a person with disabilities. And if they want to ignore someone, to be my guest, [LAUGHTER] and know that they have the right to do that as well.

Rebecca: I love the emphasis on having allies speak up and speak out. And maybe if you’re an ally, be an ally and have that in your pocket ready to pull out. Practice it.

John: Might this, along with many other reasons, lead people to not take advantage of services designed to accommodate disabilities.

Kat: Yes, so something that I hear from students is, in academic settings, where accommodated students take their tests in a known space. Just to not have to go in that one space, and let everyone know that you are testing with accommodations, students will not ask for accommodations. So the shame and the discrimination that attaches to just getting accommodations is something that stops people who very much need them from asking for them. I’ve had students who are veterans with PTSD and the need for incredibly limited accommodations to just take a break for a moment. Populations like that are afraid of disability… people who went to war are afraid of the stigma of accommodations, so much so that they won’t ask for them. In my own life. I still struggle with it within myself to the point where I make this decision in my head about whether I actually need to park in a disabled spot or not on a daily basis and whether I want to deal with the person that may yell at me. The truth is, I get a form of chemo for my RA, so I can objectively say I get that parking placard. I still don’t use it on days when I think the parking lot is crowded and someone else may need it more than me. I mean, the twisted way it’s affected my own assessment of what I need and what I deserve is really difficult. So I’ve been talking a lot from the perspective of someone with invisible disabilities. Of course, many people don’t have the luxury that I have to kind of decide on and off whether I want to share what I’m going through with respect to disabilities. However, they may still want to have confidentiality that attaches to the nature of their accommodations. For example, to the extent that they need an accommodation that places them closer to an accessible restroom. None of that should be announced to everyone and so fear of those very confidential and personal pieces of information being shared also stops people from asking for accommodations. The student feedback that I get, the reluctance is the stigma from other students and the conversations that the student bodies often have in law school, at least a conversation is, “Oh, whoever’s getting extra time on tests is ruining the curve.” And so people become petrified about being perceived as someone who’s getting an unfair advantage, to the extent they do well.

Rebecca: I hear a lot of conversation about this idea of like not being disabled enough to request accommodations, like you’re talking about, Kat, and I think that’s maybe become even more visible during the pandemic, partly because disability and chronic illness isn’t static, but also there are more folks who are experiencing mental health challenges, and maybe could really benefit from accommodations, but they don’t see themselves or don’t identify as disabled. And it would never occur to them to ask for an accommodation. How do we help these students?

Kat: So I tell my students that the system is not set up to give you too many accommodations, there will be some procedural barrier, or someone that gives you less than what you asked for. So don’t undersell yourself, don’t like negotiate against yourself to begin with, is what I tell my future lawyers. I also tell them that you don’t have to use every accommodation you get. So I think I probably asked for accommodations in law school that made my test-taking situation worse, but I had a certain number of breaks I could take away from the test to stretch and if I didn’t need them, I didn’t need them. And I was always very cautious of like, “Well, am I really taking this to stretch? Or am I taking it because I want to go and like think up this great idea, you know, in the hallway?” But the point being here, if you ask for 30 minutes of extra time, and you only end up needing five minutes or you finished early, that’s a great outcome, right? And if you have them in place, maybe there’s a semester where you don’t need them, maybe there’s a semester that you do need them, but better to have them in place early. I also really work with students, to do this work myself too, right? …to never qualify the word disability and to think in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to talk about all of the heroic activists that fought on behalf of myself and other people with disabilities to make society more accessible and that you’re doing a favor for yourself. But you’re also opening the door and making the process easier and you’re normalizing it for people that come after you. So there’s a lot [LAUGHTER] to put on someone’s shoulders, but I think there’s no way anyone’s ever going to give you more accommodations than you asked for and the process is quite burdensome. So you’re going to lose time and money along the way. But why close yourself out? Why take away the opportunity at equality? You got there, you’re in school, you want to succeed, your here, you got up in the morning, you maybe were flaring, give yourself that extra step of equality that the law says you deserve.

Rebecca: During the Accessing Higher Ground conference this fall, I went to a discussion about an increase of accommodation requests in medical school, and that many of these med students have never needed to ask for accommodations before. And I think that’s something that faculty, staff, students, there’s a great population of individuals who maybe are feeling like they need to ask for accommodations, in part because of their risk, maybe with a pandemic and what have you. What advice do you have for folks who have never navigated this terrain before and now find themselves having to navigate it? It’s really intimidating.

Kat: It absolutely is. And during the first six months of the pandemic, I spent a lot of time… happily, but it was a lot of time… counseling friends from all over the country in different lines of work. And the first barrier was: “I don’t know if I deserve this.” And it absolutely was: :Yes, you do.” So if you can’t get a hold of me… if someone contacts me, I’ll either talk to them myself or find someone that they can get in touch with… but you need to have someone who is familiar with the process talk to you about getting accommodations. This is a very technical piece of advice, but often schools and whether you’re an employee or a student, the documentation form will inform the doctor to send the form directly back to the school. I say, “No, we don’t want anything going directly from my doctor’s office to my school or my employer and there’s nothing in the ADA that requires that kind of like fascist cutting out of the person with the disability.” So I say: “Be active in this process. Call the doctor’s assistant. Speak to the doctor directly. Use plain terms. Think about what you need, put it in your own words.” Again, you’re not doing anything nefarious here. You are the expert, you are the person that understands your body and your needs and your school existence or your working existence. And you try and talk to, especially medical professionals, get them to treat you like a peer and with respect and guide the discussion yourself because once it starts feeling a little bit out of control, and you don’t know what the doctor is written in the form, and a doctor might make a mistake, it’s harder to fix that. So from the outset, what I advise people is, let’s talk about what makes sense for you. Let’s get a hold of the person in the doctor’s office that actually fills out these forms. Are they okay with you being specific about what should go in them? No doctor’s office is like, “Oh, no, we’d like to write this from scratch.” No, [LAUGHTER] they like when you help them. But you need to talk to someone about that. With respect to the pandemic, what’s been really difficult… a lot of things move very quickly, at least, let’s say, in the first six months of the pandemic and then in fall of 2020, when we were all trying to figure out, are we going back in person or not. And schools did a real disservice, I think, to students and faculty and staff alike, by setting up these ad hoc systems that didn’t have any of the confidentiality protections that accommodations typically do. What I tell anyone who needs a COVID related accommodation is to call it a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Once you use that phrasing, you’re entitled to quite a few protections that you don’t always get if you just like send back an email form checking, “Oh, I want to work online.” So there have been different ways that schools have tried to not put people into the accommodation trap, because it’s more time intensive, and also it would likely mean that more people get to work or learn online. So to summarize: [LAUGHTER] talk to someone that’s been through it that knows, that can guide you through it, don’t hesitate to recognize that something like asthma is considered a disability because it makes you high risk for COVID. You’re entitled to the ADA protection, and then definitely ask for an ADA-based reasonable accommodation as opposed to any other phrasing that the school comes up with itself. That’s as close to legal advice, I think, as I’ll give.

John: Higher ed institutions have varied quite a bit in terms of addressing those issues. Some are very receptive and have given faculty the freedom to teach the modality that is most appropriate, and others have been much more rigid and have been much more likely to reject all such requests across the board, which has created a lot of challenges for faculty.

Kat: Absolutely.

John: More generally, though, higher ed institutions have, for several years now, been increasing their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, but in those they often leave out issues associated with disability. What are some of the top things that institutions of higher ed can do to be more inclusive for people with disabilities?

Kat: So when we talk about inclusivity, with respect to disability, I would say we’re starting from a different place than some other discussions. And what I mean is, many institutes of higher ed are not legally compliant with the ADA. So the first step, I would say, is an immediate physical audit of all of our physical spaces. There’s an amazing TikToker are called Mya. She’s a student at UMass Amherst, she uses a wheelchair, and she has been going around the entire campus, explaining what buildings she can’t get into, the lack of push buttons, there’ll be an accessible doorway, and then she’ll find herself at the bottom of a flight of stairs. Again, it shouldn’t take someone who uses a wheelchair and enrolls as a student to find those things out. It’s not that expensive to do this kind of physical audit, I think everyone really needs to do it. I work now at Southern which is an HBCU that is progressive in many amazing ways. Before this, I worked at the University of Idaho and found myself with a serious leg break and in a wheelchair for about four months, and discovered, by way of being in a wheelchair, that the building wasn’t accessible. I couldn’t use my office, I couldn’t get into the classrooms. I couldn’t reach the soap in the bathrooms. And that’s, in fact, partially why I became an expert in disability law, I didn’t set out to be it, I had to become that person. I had a couple of friends on the faculty who advocated for me personally, but it was humiliating, and nothing changed, even though I would bring it up every single semester. And they were fairly easy things like get a push button outside of these doors. Part of the reason I left was my fear that a student who used a wheelchair would get there and there’d be no way to make that space accessible to them. So an immediate physical audit. I would also do an immediate review of your institution’s accommodations paperwork. Can you bring it down to fewer pages? Can you cut out the documentation? Is there a way to accept prior documentation and make it straightforward? Some of the things we talked about… putting certain accommodations in place at the moment they’re asked for rather than when the full accommodations are approved. An example is something like note takers. When a student asks for note takers, very rarely is that request denied. So why not just from the first date always have a note taker in a class? Fine. if the accommodation actually gets rejected? Oh no, we’ve given the student notes for four weeks, what will we ever do? Our entire institution now is lacking in integrity. No, we’re fine, right? [LAUGHTER] It just doesn’t matter that much. And then, as I mentioned before, we need to have these conversations assuming people with disabilities are in the room. They have to be less patronizing, right? There’s a lot of like condescension involved in talking about people with disabilities. I think after all of that is done, then we can kind of talk about beyond legal compliance. What does it mean to be welcoming and inclusive? As a person with disabilities who in academic spaces still struggles to like, move, I’m not yet ready to talk about being welcomed. In fact, what I say to people is like, you can be mean to me, as long as I can reach the soap in the bathroom, I’m at peace with that. [LAUGHTER] So we need to have those conversations first, then you can throw me a pizza party.

Rebecca: I think also, in addition to probably those physical spaces, we should be doing some virtual audits as well. And making sure those spaces are accessible for a wide range of other disabilities who would benefit from making sure those materials are also reachable.

Kat: And anytime you can put the onus on someone who isn’t a person with disabilities to double check that things are working, that’s such a relief. And so sometimes that means double checking, if you have note takers, did the notes look good? Are they a mess? When I was a student, I received notes. I asked that my note taker have the same GPA range as me? [LAUGHTER] Yeah, no, I did say, “You know, there’s some stuff that’s missing. Is anyone reviewing them?” “Oh, no, we don’t have time for that.” Okay, so are we going through the motions or are we doing something that’s meaningful? A lot about that was getting feedback from students. I have seen student activism at law schools. When student groups for people with disabilities and allies are formed, they can do so much more than I can do as a faculty member. So to the extent you don’t have a disabled students group on campus, and you want to be an ally, I would think about how to get one started, because just the presence of that group is so meaningful. And in my days of activism, at least when I was like marching in the streets, are long gone. But when I meet these young people, ah, they’re so exciting. And they think of things that I won’t think of because I haven’t been in school for a while. Now. I’m on the other side. So I find listening to student activists very helpful and eye opening.

John: Do you have any other advice that you’d like to pass on to our listeners?
:

Kat: I would say anyone that goes into a position of leadership should be educated, or at least know who to turn to with respect to disability access, and disability inclusion. And so that can mean high level things like making sure that you hire someone with disabilities, they are given all the tools to succeed. It can also mean okay, you’re someone, maybe a student, who plans a conference. Is the conference accessible? Do we have a checklist that makes it easy for people who maybe might need an ASL interpreter, for example? Is all of that there and available? Are we treating disability awareness as a key part of the skill set that you need to be a leader?

Rebecca: I love that advice and something that’s definitely not typical as part of training or just general awareness that we share within our community in higher education. So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

Kat: I’ll tell you about my scholarship and then I’ll tell you what I’m thinking about with respect to my disabled community in general. So my next piece within the disability law sphere is looking to the way we force medical encounters on people with disabilities just to get access to benefits, for example, or to get access to accommodations in the workplace. And to the extent that we are a society that believes in medical choice, or we pretend to, or we have respect for bodily integrity, why does that change? Why are we so willing to force medical encounters and sometimes really intrusive medical examinations on people with disabilities? Aside from that, I, as a high-risk person, every day, I am still fighting for my life. I take three immunosuppressants, like a lot of people with autoimmune disease. And so I am tired [LAUGHTER] of asking people to pull their mask above their nose. This happens, for example, in the waiting room of the chemo infusion center. So, there are people sitting amongst cancer patients who have their masks not above their faces. So I think for people with disabilities, the pandemic has been petrifying. And occasionally we feel… occasionally… quite often… we feel abandoned. And when it comes to discussions in higher ed about, “Well, should people be back in person?” …and as soon as the conversation turns to “Well, I just prefer to be in person.” That’s great, but don’t forget our humanity. And again, don’t forget who else is in the room and part of that discussion. And earn a minimum, we should be trying to keep people alive. And then second, we can talk about whether you feel more comfortable delivering your contracts lecture [LAUGHTER] 10 feet away from someone or over Zoom. As I say that very critical statement, I work for a… we call our Deans Chancellors down here… and he starts every meeting with a reminder that our safety is his highest concern. And even though there’s no indoor mask mandate in Louisiana, we have a mandate at my law school. I work in an HBCU, and the African-American community has been hit disproportionately by COVID, and the recognition of what it takes to keep everyone safe is very much on my boss’s mind in a way that I truly appreciate. So it’s not an announced concern for people with disabilities, but it’s sort of like a universal design, right? …safety for all, that has tremendous implications for high-risk people like myself.

Rebecca: What a great perspective to be having when you’re in a leadership role.

Kat: Yeah, absolutely.

John: It’d be nice if that were more widely shared across all institutions.

Rebecca: Thank you so much for the wide variety of information that you’ve shared with us today and advice and some ideas about ways to continue to support our community.

John: Thank you.

Kat: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

219. Rigor

In academia, the term “rigor” is often code for gatekeeping and exclusion. In this episode, Jordynn Jack and Viji Sathy join us to discuss ways of creating challenging courses while providing the support and structure necessary for student success.

Jordynn is a Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author of three books and numerous articles that focus on the rhetorics of science, technology, and gender in a variety of contexts. She is also the Director of the Health and Humanities Lab at UNC-Chapel Hill. Viji is a Professor of the Practice in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, the Director of the Townsend Program for Education Research, and the Director of the Academic Leadership Program at the Institute for Arts & Humanities, also at UNC-Chapel Hill. Viji is a national expert on inclusive teaching and is a co-author (with Kelly Hogan) of a forthcoming book on inclusive teaching which will be part of the West Virginia University Press series on teaching and learning, edited by Jim Lang and Michelle Miller.

Shownotes

  • Jack, Jordynn and Viji Sathy (2021). “It’s Time to Cancel the Word ‘Rigor.’The Chronicle of Higher Education. September 24.
  • Nilson, L. B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  • Object Lessons The Atlantic
  • Hogan, Kelly A, and Sathy, Viji (2020). “Optimizing Student Learning and Inclusion in Quantitative Courses.” in Rodgers, Joseph Lee, ed. (2020). Teaching Statistics and Quantitative Methods in the 21st Century. Routledge.

Transcript

John: In academia, the term “rigor” is often code for gatekeeping and exclusion. In this episode, we examine ways of creating challenging courses while providing the support and structure necessary for student success.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners..

[MUSIC]

John: Our guests today are Jordynn Jack and Viji Sathy. Jordynn is a Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author of three books and numerous articles that focus on the rhetorics of science, technology, and gender in a variety of contexts. She is also the Director of the Health and Humanities Lab at UNC-Chapel Hill. Viji is a Professor of the Practice in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, the Director of the Townsend Program for Education Research, and the Director of the Academic Leadership Program at the Institute for Arts & Humanities, also at UNC-Chapel Hill. Viji is a national expert on inclusive teaching and is a co-author (with Kelly Hogan) of a forthcoming book on inclusive teaching which will be part of the West Virginia University Press series on teaching and learning, edited by Jim Lang and Michelle Miller.Welcome Jordynn, and welcome back Viji.

Viji: Thank you.

Jordynn: Thanks. Nice to be here.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are… Jordynn, are you drinking tea?

Jordynn: I’m drinking coffee.

Rebecca: Ah coffee… rebel. [LAUGHTER]

John: It’s one of the most popular teas on this podcast. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: How about you, Viji?

Viji: Well in honor of the podcast, I decided to actually make tea. I had a birthday recently, and someone gave me a thing called “Chai Box” and it had teas that you can actually boil and strain and all of that. So I thought I would go through that process and have a nice hot cup of tea with you.

Rebecca: Sounds wonderful.

John: It does.

Rebecca: I wish we were in the same space so I could try some. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I am drinking Tea Forté Black Currant tea.

Rebecca: And I have a black blend called East Frisian.

John: One of your new favorites.

Rebecca: It is, yeah.

John: We’ve invited you here to talk about an article you co-authored earlier this semester in the Chronicle entitled “It’s Time to Cancel the Word ‘Rigor.’” And you raise a number of arguments about the common use of that term rigor in academics. Why is a focus on rigor so harmful?

Jordynn: Well if I can speak, I guess, to the humanities side of the question, I think the term rigor often appears when we have conversations that also entail curriculum, how to uphold a standard of mythical proportions, I guess I would say, of what students used to learn and how they used to write and how they used to perform in class that goes back centuries, honestly. So the complaints about students not meeting some standard are the reason why first-year writing exists. The idea that incoming students at Harvard weren’t writing well enough is why we have first-year writing. And that goes back over a century. But I think in my discipline particularly, there tends to be a concern, mostly about the range of students that now attend university. And I think that’s one of the root causes of this discourse. The idea that… I don’t think anyone wants to say it explicitly, but people seem to think that by admitting more students that have a wider range of backgrounds, we’ve somehow lost some standard that used to be there. And even though we know that this is a myth, it still persists. Often it’s coded language for: “some students don’t belong and others do.”

Viji: Yeah, and I guess I would add, it’s a similar idea in the sciences, I think. In our case, and as we wrote about, I think of this as… these are obstacles for students. And that’s not what we want to be as educators: obstacles. And so I’m really trying to help people see that this kind of language isn’t helpful to students, it isn’t helpful to faculty. It is code, like Jordan talks about, that really privileges a traditional view of education. And that’s not where we need to be right now. We need to be in a place where we support our students, the students we have in our classroom, not the ones that we aspire to have or think we have or any of those kinds of things. It’s actually: Who’s in our classroom, and how do we best serve them? And I think for a lot of people, they just haven’t really examined the notion of rigor and where that comes from.

Rebecca: One of the things that I was thinking about when I was reading your article was also how much this language also appears before they’re our students—when they’re prospective students or are part of the admissions process as well—that their application doesn’t show enough “rigor” or their prior education isn’t “rigorous” enough, to almost prevent certain kinds of students from being our students in the first place, which is really disturbing on so many levels. And we often hear faculty using this language of rigor when they’re complaining to one another about the scaffolding or the support that different students may need in their classes. How do we respond to our colleagues across the university, faculty as well as administrators and staff, who may be using this language?

Viji: I think a big part of it is to not shy away from saying, “We absolutely want to have a challenging course, high standards.” There’s other versions of language that indicate that you want to really push your students, in a healthy way, towards understanding the material with support from you, not as their adversary. And so I think that’s really what we want to encourage people to think about… that this isn’t an obstacle course to build for our students and see who makes it to the other side, it really is a coaching process. It’s a process where, when they succeed, we’ve succeeded, or vice versa. Really, we’re thinking about this as a shared endeavor. And the more students who succeed, the better that reflects our ability, or our perception of how we’re teaching. I never want to be seen as somebody who keeps students out, and if only a small number of students actually meet the learning objectives, that’s a poor reflection on me, not on them. And so I think that’s really what we want to do… is really flip the idea that this is not about you putting up obstacles, but rather you constructing devices, assignments, grading, all of those kinds of things that actually support your students in their learning.

Jordynn: I think to the admissions question, at least in our institution, we’re a state university, we have a mission to serve the state. And I think that’s kind of a persuasive resource we have at our disposal is that we admit students from every county, in our case in North Carolina. We have programs that encourage and provide support for students who are first-gen, we have programs in place to allow all students to succeed or to encourage all students to succeed. And I think sometimes people perhaps assume that we’re in a different role than that, like somehow, our mission is instead to be this super elite institution where we’re only admitting the best and only the best will survive the obstacle course. We’re not Hogwarts. [LAUGHTER] We’re a state institution that’s here to serve the population of students that we have. And I think, for a lot of us, appealing to that mission can be an effective way to counter the idea that we’re instead trying to uphold this elite standard.

Viji: Jordynn’s point is really a poignant one in that this is a source of pride for our campus that we admit a large number of in-state students, and our university is the flagship university in our state. So for both students and faculty, we do think of ourselves as top, we’ve got top students and top instruction happening. That’s why I think we come from this perspective of…  How do we serve these top students who are very diverse in their needs and in their experiences as they come to us? And that we take that on as a challenge, because that’s our job, is to serve these students.

John: One of the challenges that many new faculty have when they come in is they do want to use more inclusive teaching techniques. But some of the people who are evaluating them critique them because they are using inclusive-teaching practices, and they are having more students being successful, which tends to be reflected in higher grades. What can we do to help those colleagues when they’re faced with barriers in those who evaluate them?

Viji: Well, I can take a stab at it, and Jordynn you want to add if you’d like. I think one thing is that we could better educate everyone about the process and what we mean to have an inclusive classroom, to have high standards but help your students meet those standards. And I think the proof is in the pudding. I jokingly tell my students every semester, “If 100% of you make A s, I will be so happy, I will be so happy. If you meet all of the requirements and you do well in the course, that makes me really happy and I’ll retire,” that’s what I tell them, “I’ll retire when that day comes.” But I think just thinking through… How do we show our colleagues that we are asking our students to do really difficult things, and they’re meeting that challenge? That’s what we want to educate our peers about, not the grade distribution, but rather… What did the students do to earn that grade? And how did you scaffold the learning experience so that they were able to do that? And I think when we showed those
learning outcomes and the actual student work, that’s when I think we can really have very meaningful and productive conversations about how to make this happen in more classes, or how to actually highlight this kind of instruction which should be rewarded, not punished.

Jordynn: Yeah. One thing that we learned in our department when we did an assessment of student learning outcomes, was that in courses where there’s more structure, students produced better writing. And those courses happen to be first-year writing classes where each project is introduced, scaffolded with various milestones that students complete. There’s a clear sense of what the assignment parameters are beyond, “Write an essay about this topic.” And we found that students actually produced stronger arguments in those assignments and were better able to marshal evidence to support their arguments. And it wasn’t surprising to me, but it made an argument to the department that this approach is effective. And ultimately, in the report that we wrote up based on this required assessment cycle, we argued that the literature courses needed to adopt some of the pedagogy from the writing classes that was producing these effects. And so I think teaching evaluations might be another way to show that, although that’s more subjective. But for better or for worse, departments are required to have some kind of assessment of student learning outcomes. And I think that’s one place where some of these innovations in teaching can be demonstrated in terms of their usefulness.

Rebecca: We started talking a little bit about what these inclusive practices might be to move in this direction. Can we talk a little bit about expectations and what that might look like, maybe from the start of a syllabus or the course structure, and then maybe move into a couple of details?

Jordynn: I think in the article we kind of took a humanities/science perspective and that’s not a clear split. But I think overall, I’m attracted to approaches that make clear the expectations for students, such as specs grading, which is something I’ve gotten interested in lately, where you lay out, “Here’s what you need to do to get an A in this class.” And there’s different approaches to that, but basically for each unit or for each component of the class, “Here’s what the expectations are.” And then to model, in my case, “Here’s what an effective example of this writing assignment looks like.” And we look at them in class and discuss them so that it’s not this abstract idea, like, “Oh, there was an A paper that exists out there, but I have no idea what it is.” So for each component of the class to be really intentional about making the expectations clear, and then providing structure to support students meeting those expectations.

Viji: Yeah, I think that transparency part is key. You don’t want students to have to guess what is the ideal outcome. And that’s when we know people will make assumptions that are incorrect, and may be hard to come back from. So Jordynn’s example of providing a model is ideal because students can see that model. I’m guessing it’s actually an anonymized student paper, that’s something that is actually like a student product that they can critique, to see examples of that kind of peer work that happens. But it’s really helpful to students to see an example. The criticism I hear sometimes about those kinds of approaches is that it takes the creativity out of what a student might produce, because they may be trying to tailor it to the model that they’ve been provided. And in that case, I think… Only in the examples you provide, right? So you could provide a range of examples that meet the criteria, and students can see the leeway that exists, and encourage them to be creative in those endeavors. But not providing anything… I don’t know if you’ve been watching The Great British Baking Show, but there’s a thing called a “technical challenge” in the show. And it’s a piece where they have some instructions for the bakers and the ingredients, and they’re required to produce this thing. And it’s often something they’ve never even laid eyes on. But the instructions, if you see them, sometimes they show you and it’s like two steps, like, “Make the dough. Decorate it.” [LAUGHTER] And you see them really struggle, because they’ve never even laid eyes on this. They don’t even know, they have to guess based on the materials that are available, “Is this something that I should roll up?” But there’s all kinds of things that they have to guess. And remarkably, because they’re who they are, they figure it out. But why are we making our students do this kind of exercise where they have to guess what the right thing is when we actually have in our mind examples of what the right thing is and that we can provide to them, that gives that structure that Jordynn’s talking about? Structure is so important for inclusive teaching, that we don’t let people try to figure it out, that we actually give them some guidance about how to do things so that they feel confident that they can go into an assignment, understanding what might be required of them, that they have expectations about, say, the time commitment involved in an assignment, how they’re going to be evaluated in that assignment. There should be very little guesswork on the student’s part. Yes, they may not exactly know how you have applied the rubric to their paper, but they have a rubric to look at to sort of check off, “Did I do this, did I include these things, do I feel like I’ve sufficiently provided evidence for certain things…” These are kinds of waypoints that students really benefit from. And I think it produces a higher-quality product from the get-go when you give this kind of structure to students, and then it keeps your grumpiness to a minimum. And I’ve done this and I speak from experience when I’ve given students very minimal structure. And I see the variety of interpretation for an assignment and I think, “Oh, gosh, I should have been more specific about what I wanted.” And then it just keeps everybody happier. You can provide those kinds of guidelines without hampering their creativity. And, in fact, really producing something that is more along the lines of the learning experience you hope for them to have out of that assignment.

Jordynn: I would just also add, at least in my courses, I try to design a realistic problem situation that students are in so that it’s not just me dictating what the expectations are but discovering them together. So for instance, the course I have coming up is a History of Writing class. And there’s a series of essays published in The Atlantic called Object Lessons where people take a commonplace item and write about its history, and often they’re writing technologies. So their assignment in that class might be, “You’re going to write one of these object lessons essays.” So we look at some examples. There’s a history of these writing desks that women used in the 19th century where they would compose their correspondence, for instance. So, we read a few examples, and then we generate the criteria together. So what makes a good object lessons essay in The Atlantic? What’s goi ng to be likely to get published in this series? So then we develop the rubric together, we develop the specifications for what a good essay will look like, and then they’ll see, “Okay, well, this author approached it in this way, this author approached it in a different way.” So there’s leeway there. They all kind of fit a general sub-genre of writing. But it’s not like I’m developing these arbitrary requirements, like, “It has to be this long, and it has to use this citation format.” But together, we’re developing a sense of how to effectively address this situation. And so I think that addresses some of the concerns sometimes that highly structured approaches are too one-way, like, the instructor is just determining what could be still relatively arbitrary set of criteria and making them clear to students. That’s better than nothing. But it can still be ineffective for students if you’re arbitrarily deciding, like, “It has to be exactly 500 words. And I’m going to make it clear that every citation has to be exactly correct. And you can’t have any misspelled words or you’ll get a zero.” That approach is transparent, but it still might not be inclusive.

Viji: What’s nice about that is that it conveys the ambiguity sometimes of the work and how it isn’t always cut and dried, even from the perspective of the evaluator. And so it’s really helpful to students to kind of peel back what’s happening and seeing, “Oh yeah, this example resonates so much with an example I use in my class where students have to craft an interpretation around the standard deviation.” And we talk through different examples, and they see why some are more limiting than others. And it really does open up this discussion of what makes a better interpretation of a standard deviation and why.

John: One of the things you point out is that a lack of structure is not terribly equitable, because our students come in with very different preparations, depending on whether they’re a first-generation or a continuing-generation student and the type of preparation they had in their local school districts, which varies a lot based on the average income within their community. So adding structure will not only help all students, but it will particularly help those students, I think, who come in less prepared to play that game of higher ed, who come in with less clear expectations about what we expect of our students. What are some other examples of ways in which we can build in more support for those students who come in with less preparation for the hidden curriculum of higher education?

Viji: I’m going to start by… something I’m heavily involved in that I love both the idea and the implementation of it at this stage. We are in the process of incorporating a new general education curriculum on our campus. And I was part of the coordinating committee that helped think through how this curriculum might look. And now we’re in this phase of rolling out a course that does exactly this. It’s a first-year thriving course, and it’s about thriving in college. And the goal is for students to take this course in their first year, it could be spring or fall, but to really unhide that hidden curriculum of college, and particularly at a research university like ours, where students may not be familiar with the kinds of resources that are available to them, how to navigate the research university, what exists for them to really seize as part of their experiences in college. And a big portion of this is the science of learning. Because many of our students have been through many different types of classes, but don’t actually have a lot of knowledge about effective study strategies, good note taking… there’s all kinds of things that people have just been winging it. And because they are top students in our state, their method has worked for them up to this point. But oftentimes, it falters in college because it is a bit different. And some students are better equipped to handle the kinds of things we’re asking them to do in college, because of their preparation, or the methods that they’ve chosen have really served them well. So we don’t want people to bump into good practices, we would like to be able to educate them about this from the start. And that’s one thing that I’m so excited to see our students be able to take advantage of, and it will be for all first-year students, it’s a required course. And it will really help, I think, our students not only see good practices, but also point them to places they can go in the future, like using our Learning Center to get ongoing academic coaching, to really think about all of the libraries that we have and the services they offer, to really serve them well throughout their time at UNC.

Jordynn: Yeah, this makes me think about also the research on transfer, which suggests that it’s often really difficult for students to apply something abstract to a new situation. So let’s say they take this course, they learn about study techniques, then they’re in your history class, for whatever reason, they might not necessarily think back to that first-year course and say, “Oh yeah, I learned this technique.” So we have to prime them and cue them to draw on what they’ve learned previously, in order for it to transfer. So I was just working on my course design for next semester. And we’re doing a pilot of Canvas, the learning system. And I noticed that the modules that have been pre-designed have these troubleshooting sections that are for technology. But listening to this makes me think I need to repurpose those for troubleshooting the assignment. Like, I was reading through one of the readings that I assigned and it uses terms like “autochthonous.” And reading it, I was like, “I don’t know if my students are going to know this.” But will they know, “Oh, you can look up terms in a dictionary?” Which seems
obvious, but it’s not something you remember to do when you’re reading a difficult text. So troubleshooting, like, “If you’re having trouble understanding this text, here’s a good reference dictionary that might have terms related to our class.” Or, “How should you study for this test that’s coming up? Here’s a reminder about this study technique that you probably learned about in your first-year thrive class, and here’s the link to the Learning Center handout about it.” Like building in those kinds of supports the way we would for technology support. So the metaphor of troubleshooting, I think, is really helpful and something instructors should be conscious of. The same thing happens in writing all the time, like, “Well, they obviously learned how to cite sources in first-year writing.” Well they did, but you’re asking students to cite in Chicago, and they haven’t seen Chicago before. They’re not going to recognize that what they learned about MLA or APA transfers to learning about Chicago. And they won’t know how to do it unless you give them some resources and some support. You can’t just have this expectation that something they’ve learned before will automatically pop into their brain when they’re in the moment of working on something.

Rebecca: Jordynn, what you’re saying is reminding me of different experiences I’ve had with students when they get panicky about something they’ve not seen before, like, “Ah! I don’t know what this is, I’ve never seen it before!” And then as soon as you start panicking, all the things you know somehow have disappeared out of your brain, they’re no longer accessible. [LAUGHTER] So having those little reminders about those basic things is really helpful. Because when you are really under a high-stress situation, which you might have self-imposed, potentially [LAUGHTER], you still have that place to go back and re-center and go, “Oh right, right. I know that.” But those little cues can be useful. I know that in conversations I’ve had with students who hit that moment of like, “But I don’t know how to do this!” Yes you do, let’s walk through things that you do know how to do. And all of a sudden, you can just see it on their face like, “Oh right, okay.”

Viji: Yeah. And the reminders, they’re more than reminders, it’s actually reinforcing the learning, which we know is really helpful. We know things like recalling previous information is helpful for really storing it long-term. So you’re really just actively producing that retrieval over and over again, by bringing it back in other classes. But it also conveys who you are as an instructor and how you’re supporting your students. And they read between the lines sometimes when you provide these kinds of things. They come to you, and they ask about other things that you could offer advice about. It really opens the door, and it gives them permission to say, “Oh yeah, I don’t actually have to know all the words, I can look them up. That is something that they’re not assuming that I know all of these words, because they’ve told me how to use a dictionary when I’m reading the text.” So it really does give students permission to say, “It’s okay if I don’t feel 100% confident in doing this, my instructor expects that not all of us are going to know the terms.” So these are the ways in which we support our students in our communications that really help them see that we want them to succeed.

Rebecca: Another example of that is also modeling that, as a faculty member, when things come up. I teach a lot of classes where we’re doing code stuff, and I obviously am not a walking code dictionary, I can’t just recall everything. And so I often get asked questions that I can’t quite remember, I know enough to be able to look it up. And so I’ll demonstrate, “Here’s how I’m going to look this up, these are the search terms I would use.” And I have found that students are shocked the first time I do that, like “Wait, she doesn’t know everything?” But also I think they find it helpful, because they’ve said things like, “Oh, I wouldn’t have thought to look like that, or I wouldn’t have gone there.” And then by the end of the semester, I had students this semester who’ve been telling me, “Oh, I have that open all the time while I’m working on my projects now.” Good, good.

Viji: Rebecca, that’s a great point, and I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t just say that not all faculty members can  do that. We have colleagues who, if they falter in what they know or don’t know, that students will really judge them harshly for that. And so I think it’s amazing when we can do it, but realizing that some faculty members are not going to have the ability to do that very comfortably in the classroom.

Rebecca: Definitely, definitely.

Jordynn: Yeah, I’ve been called wishy-washy on evaluations before for what I felt was being inclusive in terms of negotiating with students… What are the parameters of this assignment? What should be the length for this? Or when do you want it to be due? I think sometimes students want more authoritativeness than sometimes I feel is suitable or appropriate. And so that’s something I’m constantly negotiating. And I think if I were in a different body, you know, maybe as a senior male professor in my department, maybe that wouldn’t read the same way. But it has happened on occasion, where I think some students also just feel comfortable with, “Here’s what you need to do.” If you’re used to the obstacle course, you just want to know what the hoops are. “Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.” And so taking a step back from that approach is uncomfortable for some students and also can reflect on how the instructor is evaluated by those students.

John: To create this inclusive environment, what are some things faculty should avoid doing in their classes?

Jordynn: Well, I think for me, assuming students should know X is, to me, a problem. So of course, there’s prerequisites for some classes and things that you would assume students already know. But, at least in my department, students don’t proceed through the curriculum the way we think they do. So we have this idealized path, but because of the difficulties they have in scheduling courses, or just the different paths students take, like, maybe they decide later on to become an English major, and they have to go back and take some of the earlier courses. We can’t just assume, “Oh, they must have learned this in X class.” So that’s for one, something that can really alienate students, when you think, like, “Well, they must have read X,” or, “They must understand this concept,” or, “They must know how to do this thing.” And to me, my principle is that I don’t evaluate anything I haven’t taught. So sometimes I have to be reflective about that, like… Am I trying to evaluate something that I haven’t taught them implicitly, because I have these kinds of assumptions? But for me, that’s a big one. It comes across in the attitude of the instructor sometimes too, like, “Well, obviously, you all know this,” like, “If you don’t know this, why are you even in this class?” I’ve been in situations like that, too. [LAUGHTER] It’s like when you go into a fitness class and you need to get back in shape. And they’re like, “Drop and give me 20 push-ups.” And I’m like, “Well, I can’t do a push-up right now. So I guess I’ll just walk out the door.” So having these rigid expectations about what they already know, before you’ve even taught them anything.

John: Now in some classes, particularly in STEM disciplines, there is some assumption of prior knowledge, but students don’t always have that knowledge when they come in. Are there ways we can support those students, while still allowing those students and the rest of the class to advance to the higher-level materials?

Viji: Yeah, I think you’re bringing up a great point, John. And Jordynn has mentioned this now a number of ways and times, that just because you do something once, doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve learned it. And that’s what we keep saying, it’s true of learning. There are very few things where you do it one time, and you’ve figured it out for the rest of your life. And I think we need to remember that as educators. And the way that I remind myself of this is every year or two years or whatever, I pick up something that I’ve never done before, that is hard for me. Right now, it’s playing the guitar. And I take a break from it, and then I come back and I’m like, “I don’t remember how to do that chord, again, I have to re-remember the fingering.” And then it’s just important to remember that they’re doing this not just for your class, but they’re doing this across multiple classes across multiple terms. They may have had that course three semesters ago, rather than just last semester. So of course, they’re going to have differing levels of recall about the information. Plus they’re not walking encyclopedias, they don’t remember every fact that was ever told to them. Neither would we. I mean, if I think back to my college days, and you tell me to recite a fact I learned about a particular course, I’d be hard-pressed to come up with some ideas. And I hate to say this, but I barely remember some of the instructors’ names, and I saw them every day, or every other day, for a whole semester. So we have to have realistic expectations about what can be recalled, versus… what can we give them so that they can go back and reflect on, pull back that information, to remind them of it over and over again, so that it does become a bit more cemented. And a big part of that is just recognizing the unrealistic expectation, that just because they saw it once before, that they will be able to hit the ground running with it in your course. And that you do need to provide some of these ramps on to the material. And that can include sometimes a period of time at the beginning of the semester where everybody’s just practicing some of the foundational skills that you might presume that they’ve had, but again, might be rusty, and they all need some practice with it. And I think peer instruction is a great example of where you can ask people who feel less rusty to help those in the classroom, or have students who’ve recently completed the course come back and help students. And that is another way to sort of keep that recurring practice going beyond the semester of learning that content.

Jordynn: Yeah, I agree. My difficult thing that I picked up recently was I took a weaving class. And it was a six-week class where I learned from start to finish how to make this sampler of different weaving techniques. And from the very beginning where you have to warp the loom, to using the shuttle, I don’t think I could do any of it now. But I think if I went back to the class and retook it and the instructor showed me again, “Here’s how we did the warp.” I’d be like, “Oh yeah, okay, I remember.” Some of it would come back to me, some of the techniques are embodied almost, and I would be able to pick it up again. So it’s the same thing. It’s like the baking example, like, “Make the dough.” Well that’s really difficult, but if you reminded me of the steps, I’d be able to make the dough if I’m a baker. So I think, similarly, it goes back to providing scaffolding and supports for whatever the assignments are, so that we can practice and then we can go through the steps again. And over time, if you do repeat that type of task, eventually there’s going to be some development. But you can’t just put the task out there and expect people to remember how to do it.

Viji: John, you started with a question about, “What should we stop doing?” And I have to say this just to get it out there, people should stop grading on a curve. People should stop assuming that a certain percentage of students earn an A, earn a B, C, D… whatever it is, however you’ve designed your course, that is not the way to, quote/unquote, “sort” your students, to have some predetermined thresholds for grades. There are a lot of really poor reasons for doing that, aside from the sort of quantitative side of things. Like people vary from semester to semester, and you could potentially have a really outstanding group one semester and still force people to earn bad grades. To the more principled ideas that you should actually have standards that you want students to meet, and evaluate students on those standards, and then decide, “Is this A-level work, B-level work?” And if you’re doing this collaboratively with students, that they really think through what that looks like for them, too, rather than just saying, “I already know what my grade distribution will look like, because I’ve designed it that way at the
start.”

Jordynn: I would say to stop nitpicking, too, at least in my field. I had a student in my class say, “Well, I got a B on this paper because I didn’t put the date in the right format that the instructor wanted.” [LAUGHTER] I was like, “Okay, she took a letter grade off for a date format?” Like, I get that maybe there’s some cases where really specific things are really, really important. But when it kind of seems arbitrary I think that’s another way of just saying, like, “Well, I can’t have all As. So I’m going to find relatively minor things to critique students on that will help me to distribute the grades differently. And if it has to be the format of the date, or a period in a citation, or something like that.” Personally, that’s not what I want to be spending my time on, and I don’t think that’s the most productive use of my feedback to students. And it also ends up having an effect that’s pretty uninclusive.

Viji: Yeah. And your comment reminds me, too, of some discussions we’ve been having about flexibility and offering more flexibility to students, particularly now. And we have some resistance. And I’m speaking “we” collectively as educators, about, like, upholding deadlines for things. And when I say, “But where in your syllabus is this one of your outcomes, to hold people to deadlines?” Because that’s often the underlying rationale is, “When are they going to learn how to turn things in on time? [LAUGHTER] In the real world, you have to turn things in on time.” And I want to say, “Really? I mean have you never asked for an extension on something and been given grace on it and felt so relieved about it?” And then secondly, that doesn’t sound like a learning outcome. That sounds like maybe a skill, you’re trying to help them with professionalism, and maybe part of professionalism is completing work in a timely manner. But I think a lot of times, it’s really just a matter of convenience for all involved to turn something in by a date. And so really examining… What are the things you think you’re really asking or upholding for your students? And why that is. And if it truly is, like, “I really want to help students stay on task and get things turned in in a timely way to get feedback,” then explain to your students why deadlines exist and why you have those kinds of approaches in your class.

Jordynn: Yeah, the number of professors who write their conference papers on the plane or the night before in the hotel room. Or if you’ve ever done an edited collection, you’re lucky if 30% of people turn in a draft on time. How often are deadlines extended because no one’s submitted the paper or the abstract for the CFP? Like, we’re the worst at upholding our own deadlines, but then we try to turn around and enforce them on students. And it’s really nonsensical.

John: There are cases, though, where deadlines could be useful. That if students are going to be doing things later in the class that depends on the development of skills that they need to have first. How do you deal with cases where it’s important that students master skills to be able to move on to higher levels with the class? Or they’re working in group activities where all the students need to have developed skills to move forward, and some of the students are lagging behind?

Jordynn: Well, I give the grace period for all of my assignments where there’s a window where the assignment is open and that’s the suggested deadline. Like, “We do have to move on to the next unit, so here’s a five-day window, and it opens this day.” And then I have a clause like, “Okay, if you’re really struggling, you’re having something going on, just come meet with me and we’ll work something out.” So there’s two layers, like, there’s flexibility that applies to everyone and then there’s, “Okay, something major is going on in my life.” And increasingly, that’s happening a lot. And one of the benefits, I think, of our remote learning switch is that it’s kind of changed my whole pedagogy where I have more things built into the course management system, whereas I used to just use it in a really minimal way. So now I have modules that you can work through on a more self-paced way. And it’s better if you’re doing it in the same timeline as the rest of the class, because we are using class time to talk about elements of that. But I think, in the long run, having built those materials will allow students to proceed in those extreme cases where there was something else going on in their life, and they just can’t be in class. I think it’s not ideal for students to take an incomplete and then try to finish a course later or make up the work in some way. So anything you can do to avoid that outcome, even if it means creating an alternative pathway, I think is worth doing.

John: That can work really well in smaller classes, but how does that scale when you have hundreds of students in the class? Just as an example, one thing I used to allow students to do, this was way back when I first started teaching large classes, I had weekly exams and so forth and let students replace those by submitting a video project. And I let them do that up through the end of the semester. And then there was one semester where I had about 120 videos to watch [LAUGHTER] in the last week or so of the semester, and that became a little bit overwhelming. Now, perhaps there were some ways of doing that differently, but it’s a lot easier to do that in smaller classes. How can you maintain that sort of flexibility in a larger class?

Viji: I think that is the million dollar question a lot of people are asking themselves. It’s almost like a universal design-for-learning type of question, where it’s like… How do we do this so that it’s accessible to lots of people? And I don’t necessarily need to know rationale, reasons for why something might need to be late. I think the grace period is a great example where just everybody gets it. Like, I don’t need to know why you need the grace period this time, you just get it. I’ve also heard of the notion of “oops tokens.” Life comes up, and you just can’t turn in the assignment or take the quiz, and that’s okay. I’ve got a few of those built into the semester. And the way that I implement that in my learning management system is to have a column that is just those passes that we give to students. And so we know we’ve kept track of the passes that they need, like, they contacted me to say they can’t turn in assignment two, great, that’s out of, let’s say there’s five oops tokens, that’s a one for them in that column for that semester. And then we just keep track of it that way. I think there are some ways, but unfortunately, I don’t think our learning management systems, our technology, has really incorporated flexibility in its approaches. And that’s where I think I’m personally very interested in how technology can help us be more flexible in keeping track of things like this. I mean, it is helpful to say, like, “Okay, best due by a due date, that is the ideal timeline to get good feedback to be able to move forward.” But then there’s also the, “It is not going to be late, you can absolutely turn it in, here’s another deadline. And then maybe there’s just one that’s a wide open, like, “By the end of the semester, I just need to see something from you.” And so then students aren’t panicking, that they’ve got a “late” marked by their paper because it got turned in anyway. So really just thinking through how to leverage some of our technology to do that. But I say that saying, I don’t think our technology is ready for flexibility yet, it isn’t where it needs to be. It can do things like drop a grade in a grade set or something like that that can also be helpful. But I would love for it to be more flexible in the way that it can calculate grades, like even offering different grading schemas that students can choose. And then it actually projects those grades for students so they’re not having to do the calculations themselves and second guessing where they need to be on something to be able to earn a certain grade. So I think if anybody out there works at any of these learning management sites, I want to talk to you about how we need to be better about really using good pedagogical approaches, and baking them into the systems that we have. I think this is the biggest challenge for faculty. Their heart is in the right place, oftentimes they want to do these kinds of things, but they can’t figure out how to do it at scale. So if we can get technology to help us, then I think we could actually capture a lot of this challenge.

Jordynn: Yeah, I think the course management system has a baked-in pedagogy that’s not always the most progressive. And it’s often content delivery, a term that I hate, with some kind of quiz, and then they add assignments in. But sometimes the default settings revert to this kind of model. So I noticed in this Canvas pilot that we’re doing, the collaborate tool is, for whatever reason, either disabled or really opaque in terms of how to use it. But that’s the number one reason why I wanted to try something different, was to be able to offer built-in ways for students to collaborate in a Google Doc or to use Google Drive without sending them to some totally different site, which gets really confusing to students. And the built-in assumption is that that’s not the primary thing that instructor wants to use this for. Yeah, I mean, I don’t know to what extent they actually talk to instructors who are trying to build in different approaches to teaching, but it seems instead there’s this kind of default, like, you’re just going to be uploading notes and videos for students to watch and then answer questions about and that’s your pedagogy. So yeah, it’s pretty problematic in that way. Figuring out contract grading, also, which is an approach that I often use, has been really difficult for me, which is a totally different approach where I’m not marking each thing and giving students grades but that they’re trying to meet specifications for what it means to earn an A in that class. And so something more holistic like that is just really hard to enact.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking the really big question, “What’s next?”

Viji: I want to bring it back to this conversation of rigor and say—and you all know this—my colleague, Kelly Hogan, and I have been talking about inclusive teaching for years now. And while we do receive some critical remarks about it, nothing like this article about rigor has actually produced. Somehow we pushed a button that some people really, really didn’t want us to push. And it’s been eye opening to me because it’s very much the idea of inclusive practices. But with this explicit idea that rigor should not be attached, like, we should actually not use that word. So it almost feels like there’s some people out there with an alert for the word rigor. And then when that pops up, they get right into it. It’s been interesting for me to see. This is definitely a hot button issue. And although I think inclusive teaching approaches can help ameliorate some of them, it opens my eyes to the ideas that we have a lot of different people who have different ideas about education, some of them are actually educators, and some of them are not. So thinking about, holistically… What other things are we not challenging that we should be because the underlying assumptions are gatekeeping in the very worst ways by turning people away, which is not what we want to do. And really helping people to see that these practices, these terms, are perpetuating privilege that really, as educators, we should absolutely challenge. I think this is something that we don’t stand for, to say that only those who have could continue to have, and that we really want to level the playing field and help all students succeed. So those are the kinds of things I’m thinking about… What else is out there? I’ve said rigor. What else can I say to make sure that people know that these are not what we want to be doing in our classrooms today?

Jordynn: I guess for me, the elephant in the room is the effects of COVID on generations of students. I have elementary-age kids, and it’s affected them in certain ways. And then obviously, kids who are in high school right now, the students that we have in college who are coming in with two years, three years of disrupted learning. That’s a huge opportunity, I think, as well as a challenge for thinking about inclusivity because the range of effects for different students is so vast. And I think, relatedly, the experience with COVID has brought up questions about standardized testing. And I think that’s another important place to think about inclusivity and to think about the rigor assumptions that shape who gets into college. And the kind of temporary moratorium for some places on using those scores, opens up an opportunity to question how the emphasis on standardized testing has shaped our students’ education, because it starts in kindergarten now. And, you know, we’re holding students to one very specific, relatively narrow standard about what constitutes learning. And I think especially with the effects of COVID, it should become apparent that it’s just unfair to keep doing that when students have been out of class, they’ve been learning virtually, students have lost parents and loved ones. And just sticking to this old model where everyone has to meet this one really narrow standard… we can’t keep going that way with everything that’s happened.

Rebecca: You’ve both brought so many really important topics to the table today. And thank you for writing your article and bringing up the word “rigor.” And I hope you find more [LAUGHTER] that we can start to tackle as a community.

John: In terms of the response you’ve received, this response is really bringing up some critical debates, I think, on a lot of campuses. And, again, as Rebecca said, thank you for writing this. I hope it spurs a lot of productive debates on many campuses.

Jordynn: Thanks for having us.

John: Thanks for joining us.

Viji: Thank you

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer. Editing assistance provided by Anna Croyle.

[MUSIC]

218. Blended Learning

Although new to many as a result of the pandemic, blended learning has a long history of effective use. In this episode, Chuck Dziuban and Patsy Moskal join us to discuss how blended learning has been used at the University of Central Florida for the past two decades. Chuck is the Director of the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Central Florida [UCF] where he has been a faculty member since 1970, teaching research design and statistics. He is also the Founding Director of the university’s Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. Patsy is the Director of Digital Learning Impact Evaluation, also at the University of Central Florida. Chuck and Patsy are both Online Learning Consortium Fellows and have been doing research on blended learning for quite a while now. They are also two of the editors of the recently released third volume of Blended Learning: Research Perspectives.

Shownotes

Transcript

John: Although new to many as a result of the pandemic, blended learning has a long history of effective use. In this episode, we examine how blended learning has been used at one institution for the past two decades.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca: Our guests today are Chuck Dziuban and Patsy Moskal. Chuck is the Director of the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Central Florida [UCF] where he has been a faculty member since 1970, teaching research design and statistics. He is also the Founding Director of the university’s Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. Patsy is the Director of Digital Learning Impact Evaluation, also at the University of Central Florida. Chuck and Patsy are both Online Learning Consortium Fellows and have been doing research on blended learning for quite a while now. They are also two of the editors of the recently released third volume of Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Welcome, Chuck and Patsy.

Chuck: Well, thank you, Rebecca. We’re glad to be here.

Patsy: Yeah, thank you very much. So nice to be here talking to you guys.

John: It’s great to see you back, Chuck. And it’s great meeting you, Patsy.

Chuck: Yeah, this is my third time. I’m honored.

John: Our teas today are… Are either of you drinking tea?

Chuck: I am drinking lean green tea from a Christmas mug.

Rebecca: Perfectly in season.

Patsy: Yeah, I’m just drinking a green tea. My usual afternoon drink.

Rebecca: I think I’m accidentally drinking watered-down English afternoon tea. I think I put hot water in my cup without putting a teabag in it. And so it’s very light.

Chuck: You’ve always been innovative, Rebecca.

Rebecca: So it’s hot water. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I am drinking a peppermint spearmint tea blend, as it is late in the day and I had a lot of caffeine earlier.

Rebecca: Miss your blends there, John. Haven’t had one in a while.

John: Well, I’ve got some new fresh tea to make them.

Rebecca: I’ll have to stop over. So we’ve invited you here today to discuss blended learning. First, it might help if we start with the definition of blended learning?

Chuck: The definition of blended learning could take this and several other podcasts. The whole notion of blended learning has sort of evolved by complexity. It is diverse, it is interdependent, it is connected, and it is adaptive. I remember the early days with the Sloan Consortium where Frank Mayadas, who was adamantly opposed to blended learning, had wanted nothing to do with it. And Tony Picciano and I finally convinced him to fund a small summit in Chicago to begin discussing blended learning. And the first task, of course, was to define blended learning, and that was 30 years ago. And here we are, still defining blended learning. Blended learning is emergent, it is changing constantly. It almost defies definition. If you look at the literature, Oliver and Trigwell writing that famous article “Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed?” and castigating it because it is not scientific, it has no specific definition and never will. To Rhona Sharpe saying its great strength is the fact that it is undefined and it allows every campus to develop its own model of blended learning. So blended learning definition is a very, very tricky kind of thing. It’s going to be some combination of online and face-to-face education, but it has evolved way past that, as you all know, in terms of doing this. I think basically—and I’ll let Patsy chime in in a minute—it’s become what Susan Leigh Star has called a “boundary object.” Boundary objects are something like critical thinking. If you go to the UCF or Oswego campus and you say to faculty, “Are you in favor of critical thinking?” “Oh yes, we are. Critical thinking is wonderful!” But then you get the group together, you get the faculty consortium together, the Faculty Senate, and they disagree. They fight vehemently over the definition of critical thinking. However, if you go back to their individual constituencies—rhetoric, physics, mathematics—they know precisely what critical thinking is. And that’s very much the way blended learning has evolved. It’s moving, it has changed the way we think about this and it is emergent. It will be emergent for the next decade.

Patsy: Just from an institutional standpoint, we do have a definition of blended learning. We actually refer to it as “mixed mode” on our campus. And it’s a combination of online and face-to-face, but it has to have some reduced seat time. So for instance, if it’s a three-credit-hour course, there may be one hour that is in a physical classroom space, with the remaining two hours being asynchronous online instruction. So, we have a newer modality that actually started in our College of Business to have large enrollment. And we don’t have classrooms large enough to fit even a fraction of the students. So, they looked at a mode that has less than 20% face-to-face. So basically, meet five times in a semester, splitting up a large class into five smaller groups, and they focused on making those active learning. And the remainder of the instruction, again, is online. So for us, it just has to have some reduced seat time capacity.

Chuck: Well, Patsy has given a great definition of logistics associated with blended learning. And then you have the educational implications of blended learning. There are great thinkers about this. Charles Graham has done a great deal of work on the kinds of blends, augmenting blends and supplemental blends and all of those kinds of things. Anders Norberg in Sweden who has done a marvelous paper on looking at blended learning simply from a time perspective… Do you want to be synchronous or asynchronous? So there are many forks to this kind of thing. What do you do with seat time? What do you do with educational philosophy? And as we talk about modality, and I will say now and people probably won’t like me, but course modality is one of the worst predictors of outcomes ever, in terms of doing this. When you look at any kind of predictive model, students don’t care about modality, we’re the ones that seem to be obsessed with it.

John: Could you tell us a little bit more about how the blended learning program at UCF got started?

Chuck: We started this whole thing with online learning. And Patsy and I began to collect data immediately. And the administration said, “Oh, this data is very informative, collect more of it.” So one of the studies we did is we looked at the presence of students who were taking online courses. And lo and behold, we found that the vast majority of them had a campus presence. All of these distance students that we imagined didn’t really exist. They were taking courses from labs, they were taking courses from the library, and they had a presence on campus. So it led to the conversation of… Well, if they’re here, can we somehow use the affordances of both modalities, of the face-to-face and the online learning? And what happened was, we developed, and Patsy’s already mentioned, this notion of, we call it “mixed modality.” We like to think that we invented it, but everyone else likes to think they invented it as well. And we stuck with mixed modality for a very long time, until Sloan began funding blended learning. And then we changed very quickly to blended learning. Patsy, what did I leave out about that?

Patsy: No, I think that’s essentially how we started doing blended learning. And we’ve never had enough classroom space, I’m sure every college is the same. So, part of the reason that we looked at online and blended was to increase access for our students, to help people, provide them with the means to be able to get an education. And it was very appealing for the administrators to look at the concept of blended learning. Again, if you took that three-credit hour and built one-credit hour with face-to-face, well I can fit three of those blended classes in one classroom over the course of the semester. So that’s an appealing use of maximizing the classroom space. And I think our past CIO, Joel Hartman’s, idea was to do that. Ironically, It’s a lot harder than you think because of the way scheduling is done. As you can imagine, departments don’t necessarily coordinate. We all know how it works functionally, sounds great, but when you try to put it into play at a university sometimes there’s things you don’t plan on. But we did have our Rosen School of Hospitality Management within the last, I’d say, five to seven years. And they’re down at our International Drive area because, not surprisingly, that’s where all the hospitality jobs are, so it makes sense. And they had a huge parking issue. So they had not been interested at all in blended learning until they realized they could use it for this exact reason. And then they jumped on the blended learning bandwagon and are now one of our biggest users of that modality. So it’s really interesting how, if you’re thinking outside the box, a lot of this comes to play.

Chuck: That’s an interesting story. There’s a great aphorism by the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, who says, “In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice, except in practice there is.” And this is what’s happened and the fact is that although the Rosen College began their blended learning initiative out of a not-so-educational perspective, again, this logistic thing. And I will quote that our former CIO, Joel Hartman said, “If you ever think you’re going to make money with this, you’re in the wrong business. It’s not going to happen.” But the other thing has happened, the Rosen College has developed into a marvelous, marvelous educational system using the blended learning model. Maybe not for the right reason, but they have evolved,. and they’re doing things extremely well, because they’re a natural for the combination of hospitality management, face-to-face, and online learning.

John: So blended learning started there mostly because of limited resources and the need to use the resources more efficiently. How did it work? What does the research tell us about how effective blended learning has been compared to other modalities?

Chuck: Well, imagine yourself as a faculty member who has been told, voluntold, that we’re going to do a blended learning course. So now what you’re going to do is you’re going to have part of your course online, part of your course face-to-face. The first time, almost always, a faculty member starts, they start with this thinking: “What in my face-to-face can I offload to the online environment?” And they think about that, and that is usually the beginning of this. And then it begins to emerge when they say, “Ah, maybe this is not the way to think about it. Maybe I need to think about it in terms of which is most effective online, in which students do the best online, in which students excel in the face-to-face environment.” So what happens, John, is there’s an evolutionary development of faculty members, to the fact where they no longer think about this as two modalities. But they think about this as a constructed course with seamless boundaries. And that really happens over several semesters. If you’ve ever done it yourself, teaching the first course in any of these modalities, which we have, it’s a disaster. It just is not the way you think it is. We’re all pretty experienced at this, and we all know when it goes well. And we all know when it doesn’t. And nothing feels better when it goes well, and nothing feels worse than it goes badly. That’s the way it happens, it evolves. Now the outcomes from that is a story that we can talk about later.

Patsy: I think UCF… early on… we were lucky that we got involved with online and blended learning when we had enough resources to be able to do it right. And we had visionary administrators who recognize that it’s important to focus on the faculty development, it’s important to focus on research and try to use research to help inform the process. And so all of those units were put into place early on. And the late Dr. Barbara Truman actually led the Faculty Development Initiative. Dr. Steve Sorg, who’s retired, led the Center for Distributed Learning, and then Chuck led the research arm of our beginning part. So in faculty development, one of the main drivers and we’ve always said, “Don’t let the technology drive the instruction, but let your instruction drive the technology.” So, as part of the faculty development, faculty are encouraged not to just figure out what to put online versus face-to-face. But really think about redesigning your course from the ground up. What are your learning objectives? What are your instructional objectives? What do you hope to do? And then find the best tool… whether it’s online, face to face, active learning, adaptive learning, whatever… find the tools available that you can do well, and go from there. So I think that’s been part of it. And UCF also has a detailed process for quality review for courses. So if you’re teaching online or blended, you are required to go through the faculty development and get certified. But that gets you access to an instructional designer who helps you think through not just the technology, but the pedagogy behind it. You get access to graphic artists and we call them tech rangers who develop all kinds of great tools and games and simulations and all that kind of stuff. For adaptive learning, we actually have instructional designers that focus on personalized adaptive learning. So they know the software and the instructional components of adaptive learning and how to do it well. That’s the big carrot, they get incentivized to come through the program. But I think, once they get in, they actually like some of the stuff they found. So, in redesigning their course to be online and/or blended, they find tools that they then want to incorporate in their face-to-face courses as well. So that’s historically been what we’ve done, what we’ve seen. And it served us well, I think, to maintain quality across the institution.

Chuck: Well, what you see also is, that Patsy didn’t mention, is in our training of faculty, they experienced the blended learning course. They actually are involved in a course that is blended learning. So they understand, as students, what they are confronting in terms of this. So it is, again, evolutionary in terms of a changing process. And I will say that every faculty member who comes in from whatever department thinks that the pedagogy and unique problems associated with their discipline is in fact unique. That what you have to do in rhetoric, what you have to do in physics, is vastly different than any other discipline. And we are special and we are unique. At the end of this course, they realize that there is common ground, mostly all common ground in terms of what constitutes effective instructional things. And they’re able then to look at all of these technologies we present to them and be able to evaluate them, “Is this technology really a solution looking for a problem, or is it something that can actually help me become more effective in my instructional design?” And it is, again, an evolutionary process. And you’ll see a coming together of faculty during this experience. And they don’t all buy it. We’re instructionally design oriented. And I always remember an incident of someone from rhetoric came into my office and threw a copy of Derrida on my desk and said, “What is this instructional design stuff? When you understand deconstructionism, we will talk.” So I read the book and said, “The book deconstructed and disappeared. Now, what do you want to talk about in terms of doing this?” But the point is, you have to respect the values of the discipline. And I say that with tongue-in-cheek, but you absolutely have to respect the value structure of any discipline you’re working with. If you tell them they’re doing it wrong, you’re not going to get far.

Patsy: We also rely on something called “web veterans.” We have our web vets, which are faculty who have already been through the process. And not surprisingly, I think anytime you have a new initiative, there are those people who jump on board, the first people out of the gate who love to test drive stuff. But they become the experts, and they know how to do it well, and they know the pros and cons. And they also add credibility. So faculty listen to other faculty, particularly those within their discipline, or STEM listen to other STEM faculty and so forth. But it’s much more credible than having an instructional designer telling me how to teach when you’re not in my classroom, as Chuck said. So I think it’s really helped. We have a faculty advisory board that really helps direct what we do and think about the evolution as we’re now in a state of evolution, I think, and with COVID, are going to be in a state of evolution. I think that really has helped.

Chuck: Well, we’ve all taught, we’ve all taught for a long time. And there’s a great deal of difference between teaching a few courses, and teaching year after year after year after year over the long haul of this, and we’ve all taught and we’ve all taught semesters. And I think all of us experience this excitement, and anxiety at the beginning of a semester. You say, “I really want to do a good job, and I’m all excited and I’m nervous.” And at the middle of this semester you say, “My god, will this thing ever end?” You’re trying to get through it and trying to work through this sort of thing, and at the end of it you feel a sense of completion. And that rhythm is so important to understanding the instructional process, not only with technology, but as a faculty member in general. And we have to respect that teaching a long period of time is a difficult task. And you all know that classes are very much different. What goes well one semester does not go well the other semester. We’ve all experienced that, we’ve all experienced that.

Rebecca: I’m living that.

Chuck: Absolutely, and it’s draining, Rebecca. It is draining because you contribute a great deal of emotional intellectual energy to this task. We all do. We were talking about boundary objects. Equality is a beaut, it is a beaut.

Rebecca: You’re talking a lot about some really important resources that are in place at your institution: a pretty expansive support system of technology support, instructional design support, actual technology [LAUGHTER], peer support, time, professional development. That leads me to think that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes people make, or institutions make around blended learning, is not putting enough resources into the system?

Chuck: Yeah. But again, I think you have to be careful with, “If I had more money, I’d do a better job.” The whole notion is not only that, but commitment at the administrative support level, and all particular levels, and basically saying, “We value the teaching enterprise, and we’re going to do everything we can to celebrate that.” That is critically important, because money alone doesn’t do it. You know that as well. I had a friend once who said, “If you had all the money and everything you wanted to do your job, two weeks later you’d come back and say, ‘I don’t feel fulfilled.’” Because it takes much more than that.

Patsy: Well, and it’s easy to hear us talk about all that we have in place now. But understand, we started in 1996, so we didn’t start with all of this. We started with instructional designers with TV trays and laptops, meeting people at the campus coffee shop or in their offices. And it started small and grew as the initiative and the institution grew. So over time, it’s easy to add resources. But I think one of the common mistakes is just underestimating the amount of work it takes to produce a quality online or quality blended course. And not meaning to be a Debbie Downer, but segueing into what we’ve experienced during COVID, we’re very careful to make sure to differentiate what we had to do from an emergency remote instruction, and say, you know, “That is not the quality online learning that we have worked so hard to put into place for the last few decades.” So I think that’s very different, in terms of just trying to survive and keep the doors open, so to speak, for students, with everyone… those who have never been through any training, those who’ve never had any online-teaching experience in the middle of a pandemic with kids at home and scant technology resources… students who don’t have any technology resources, who have major job issues, family issues, in the least-conducive-to-studying room and try to expect everyone to excel. I think that’s really the fact that it does take a lot of work. And so I think that maintaining realistic expectations, as Chuck said, it’s not a one-and-done kind of thing. It’s not a one-and-done when you teach face-to-face either, right? The first time you teach any class, it’s not the best time you teach. You evolve, you learn, you adjust, and continue to try to, hopefully, improve every time you teach. I think that’s true of any of the online or blended modalities as well.

Chuck: Steven Johnson has written a wonderful book called Where Good Ideas Come From. It is just a really, really good book and he has three adages in terms of this. One is… What is the adjacent possible when you start this? What is the reasonable next thing you can do? You can’t do it all, so do the thing that you can do and do it well. That’s the adjacent possible, it comes from a biologist named Stuart. The second thing is a slow hunch. You have to be in it for the long haul. If you look at Darwin, he was in it for the very long haul. And he didn’t even know what he had for several years until he came up with it. You have to commit to the long haul to do it, not a quick fix. None of this is a quick fix. And the next thing is a liquid network. You need to be supported by a network around you to prop you up as you go along. And Rebecca, when you said this in terms of resources, one of the resources is you are in this for the long haul if you’re going to do this. So it takes an institutional commitment, and that always is not there.

Rebecca: What are some of the most promising areas of development in blended and online learning?

Patsy: We’ve had good success using adaptive learning, we have an adaptive learning initiative. We started in 2014, I guess. And again, we learned it takes a lot of work, we use a content-agnostic platform, so Realizeit is our enterprise solution. We do have, our math department uses ALEKS as well. But it takes a lot of work. Faculty want control, and you get control, you have to redesign the course. But you have to actually design all of the content for a lot of it, or at least the majority. And trying to import from another sounds great, but it always still requires work to get it to work well. Though, that’s one of the things that we’ve had good luck with. I think we’re going to see a lot more blended learning post-COVID. We’ve never really promoted synchronous online learning and haven’t seen a big drive to do synchronous until everyone had to do Zoom. And now I think there’s some faculty that are going to run for the hills as soon as they can get out of Zoom mode and never want to look back. But there are some who were already asking, “You’re not going to get rid of Zoom, are you? Because I found it’s really great for me to do these discussions…” So there are people who’ve already, again, figured out instructionally how they can use this effectively, and do it from a distance. And when you’ve got students who might be geographically dispersed or have to worry about traffic, we have parking issues, all of that stuff comes into play. So I think we’re going to see a lot more blended learning in general in the future. And not just in instruction, but also in the workplace. We’ve seen pilot testing in a hybrid work environment now with so many days in the office, so many days remotely. So, I think that’s one thing.

John: If you’d like to learn more about Realizeit and adaptive learning at UCF, we did a podcast with Chuck a while back, episode 30, on adaptive learning, and we’ll include a link to that in the show notes.

Chuck: Oh my God, way back to episode 30. We are dinosaurs, aren’t we?

John: Since a few of our listeners might not have been listening back in the primeval times of episode 30, could you briefly explain why adaptive learning might be useful in supporting students with diverse educational backgrounds?

Chuck: I think you really have to ask yourself, “What is the problem we’re trying to solve in the United States of America?” I’ll get it from a different point of view. I think a problem in the United States is that if you live in a lower economic quartile, your chance of going to and graduating from college is 10%. The odds against you are nine to one. I think blended learning and adaptive learning and some of the things that we’ve learned during this pandemic, are going to help us a long way to begin to solve that kind of a problem. That is, we know that many of our underserved students live in an environment of scarcity. They don’t have enough resources, they don’t have enough time, they don’t have enough transportation, they don’t have enough support from their families. They have simply no opportunity to engage in the university the way we’ve constructed it in the years past. They can’t do it. So we also learned, and very much from several papers and the notion that, if you fix the amount of time that a student has to learn, what they are going to learn is going to become the variable. If what they learn is constant, then the amount of time they spend learning, surprise, is going to be the variable. We’ve confronted this, it’s a difficult challenge for universities. But I think one of the real affordances of what we’ve got is to begin to look at… How can we, as universities, eliminate this horrible educational inequity, which exists in the United States of America? That’s a real affordance that we’re going to learn. John Carroll’s great paper, “A Model of School Learning,” said 60 years ago that we have to find another way, that the students do not start from an even playing ground. And you take an underserved student who comes in and one domino falls, their car breaks, or they can’t get childcare, the entire system collapses on them. They miss one class and they’re behind, they miss two and they’re lost. The optimal choice is to drop out. That is not the choice that we want. And I think the things that we’ve talked about today are going to really help us address these very serious problems in our country. You know it, we are wasting millions of minds in the United States, and we can’t do it anymore. I don’t know if blended learning and adaptive learning will solve it all, but it’s going to go a long way to help, I think.

John: And that issue of income inequality and the growth of that is really troubling. We bring so many students into our campuses, and then we just let them fail out without providing support so that they can be successful. And it’s a waste of resources, and those students are ending up burdened with a lot of debt once they leave, without getting the benefits of that education. And I agree, this is one of the most critical things we need to work at.

Chuck: Let me address the debt problem, too. That’s a huge problem, John. Right now, the accumulated college debt in the United States is $1.7 trillion. That is mind blowing. If that were a GDP, it would be the 13th largest economy in the world. We have got to do something about this in this country, we have got to find a way. And like you just said, tragically, if you drop out, you’re in debt, and you’re in debt for nothing. And Pell Grants are wonderful, but Pell Grants are two semesters. One semester, you get on probation, you have one more to get off probation. If you don’t get off probation, you’re no longer Pell eligible. Do you know how hard it is to bring up a whole semester of Ds in one semester? It can’t be done, can’t be done.

John: One of the things you mentioned is that blended learning is likely to be adopted more as a modality moving forward as colleges have experimented with a wide variety of modalities. But for many campuses, this may be the first time they’re doing it. What are some of the most common mistakes that faculty make when they build that first class? You mentioned before, Chuck, that these classes, the first time you teach them are often unsuccessful. What are some of the things faculty should avoid doing when they build that first blended learning class?

Chuck: I mentioned earlier that when they begin, they view this as two separate modalities and what of my face-to-face… what of the gold standard can I offload? And the thinking of, “I’ll offload the unimportant stuff to the online environment.” It’s wrongheaded thinking. In terms of I think what they have to think about really is, “Are there students in my class who can learn better online? Are there students who function better in the face-to-face environment? And can I somehow encompass that?” And it’s all the things that we wrestle with all of the time in all of the courses. In all of my courses that I’ve taught, I wish I did everything well. Sadly, I do not. I wish I were excellent at everything. And some things, I just cover material. And I think faculty have to come to terms with, “When am I covering materials?” It’s a very introspective kind of thing. And I think you’re not necessarily ready for it the first time because, as Patsy said, I think the first time you’re in survival mode. I think Patsy will agree that the first time you do you say, “What have I got myself into, and why am I doing this?” It is evolutionary. That is a mistake to think about that. And I think a mistake is to think it’s going to go well the first time, it hardly ever goes well the first time. It’s like the first time we ever taught a course. I didn’t know anything the first time I left Wisconsin and came to then-FTU, I didn’t know anything about teaching. So I lectured for three hours. My God, I don’t understand why they didn’t lynch me. And I didn’t know any better!

Patsy: I think Chuck’s right, it’s a lot of work. And so from the faculty perspective, I think trying to have realistic expectations and not look at it as, “Here’s the endpoint of where I want to go, but you have two weeks to do it.” That’s not going to work. Make sure you have enough time. If you have access to resources, I think that’s really important.From an institutional standpoint, we know it takes a lot of work to create an online class. Faculty would say it takes more work to create a good blended class. So you can either have the best of both worlds, but it could also be the worst of both worlds. And you don’t want that to be the outcome. So trying to have realistic expectations and then, from an institutional standpoint, make sure you have the support that you need, not just for faculty, but for students. Make sure that you have the robust infrastructure. And for us, what we found, especially like this last year with COVID, is that we did have a lot of students who were doing those courses, we have a very small number of fully online students that take only online. What our students do is really pepper their courses with a mixture of modalities. So they take an online and a blended and a face-to-face. And we’d like to think that the online and blended help reduce the opportunity cost for getting an education. So they can help them balance their life with education. But we have a lot of labs on campus. They were relying on the computers in the labs, they were relying on the Wi-Fi in their dorms, the laptops that they might have access to, and things like that. So I think just making sure that you have the infrastructure that’s necessary, that you have support to be able to handle any issues, questions, both for students and for faculty. From an institutional standpoint, I think it’s really critical. And if you’re going it alone and you’re a faculty member, and there are people who do that, understandably, if you’re in a situation, start small. Keep your expectations realistic, and grow your course as you learn, as you go along. So keep improving it.

Chuck: One of the strategies… UCF is a very selfish place. In all of these kinds of initiatives, what we do is we cherry-pick the best faculty we can find to maximize the effectiveness of what they’re doing. When we did our adaptive learning things, we had faculty members who looked and said, “Oh yeah, I want to do this.” And we knew they were the best faculty we had and we knew they would make it look good. One colleague in nursing, who has left us by now, she said, “I don’t want any of your tutorials. I just want to mess around with this, RealizeIt, and figure it out for myself.” And she did, and she was marvelous. And that kind of a model really motivates faculty. I would point out so far we have not talked one iota about blended learning. We have talked about blended teaching. That’s what we talk about. We call it blended learning, but we segue, to use Patsy’s word, right away to blended teaching. And that’s an evolutionary thing, Rebecca, that we’re going to have to deal with in the years to come in terms of what is blended learning, aside from the arrangements for teaching. And the other thing that has happened is, you can blend many things. We’ve talked about blending courses. You can blend a university, you can blend all kinds of aspects of this institution in terms of faculty, and students taking online and blended and face-to-face courses. Blending their locations, blending many, many things that people have written about. Our dear departed colleague, Karen Swan wrote about the blended university and several others have talked about that notion of expanding it behind the notion of just a course, that it is much more than that. That is blending a university culture.

Rebecca: Chuck, I’m glad that you brought up students because one of my next questions was going to be: How do we prepare students for this kind of learning? Sometimes they come into an environment. And I know we had a lot of students say this in the emergency teaching that we were doing, like, “I don’t know how to learn online, I don’t know how to do this. I don’t know how to balance my time, I don’t know how to manage different modalities and things.” So what are some things that we can do to support actual student learning in an environment that might be unfamiliar to them.

Patsy: As soon as you said that I gravitated towards the faculty I work with who teach predominantly undergraduates and a lot of freshmen. Now, I don’t want to say they parent them into success as much as they can. But in some sense, that’s what they do. I think it’s probably idealistic for us to assume that freshmen come in and are going to go from being handheld with what we do in K12, to instantaneously going to be able to jump into a course and know what they’re doing and take responsibility and all of that kind of stuff. So faculty are very strategic at using the technology to nudge them, remind them, try to provide some motivation for them to get involved. And I think that’s some of what is important, I think that that helps students ease into this. We find a lot of… maybe it’s because of Florida… but I think Florida requires our high school students to have some online learning experience. But even then, the high school online learning is not the same as what we do. Because again, there’s parent consultations, and there’s a lot more very structured, dedicated time with parents and students that you don’t get, I mean, we just can’t do in higher education. But I do think there’s some strategies. We are seeing a lot of colleges are trying to work to find out who is at risk earlier and hopefully intervene. So what interventions do we have? That really early identification, trying to identify students who are in trouble and making sure they get access to the help that they need early on is important. Some of the analytics work we’re finding, you’ll see, I think, a trend that’s going to continue, as we have more and more access to student engagement, student performance with both platforms and our LMS and all of that. Everybody’s shooting out analytics, right? I mean, we know we track people all the time now in terms of how they’re doing, where they are, and what’s going on. Some of that is helpful, it’s going to be important to sift through the noise to find what’s really helpful for those students who need help.

Chuck: Well, Rebecca, I would say one is you certainly cannot throw these students into the breach. That is the first thing you cannot do, absolutely. In terms of, “You are on your own, and you’re going to do this.” So what you have to do then is really be very introspective in terms of, “What is it I do well in my face-to-face? And how can I translate that into an online environment?” And you know very well, I would rather give a lecture to 5000 hostile politicians than to do a webcast, simply because I am not nearly as effective in that environment. So that’s something that you have to do. And the other thing I think you have to realize is that the student voice has become increasingly important in higher education. We came from a time— at least I did—when you went and you lectured and you left, and it didn’t really matter what students thought. That is no longer the case. They have a voice and they express it continually about the quality of education and they share it. And you must realize that culture is going on all the time. All of those things are coming into play that change the educational environment and blended learning. Clay Shirky’s got a great thing that he did several years ago about… we used to lecture and that was it. But then they wanted to email us and they became really annoying. They wanted access to us more than just our office hours. That was a big change for many of us. And then they began talking to each other about us. And then they began talking to each other more about us. And then they began talking to the world about us. And I’ve used this example all the time, just go on YouTube and pick any topic related to teaching, and a professor, a good professor, bad professor, drunk professor, stoned professor, and you will find videos. Students now share their voice, and they’re part of the voice. And I think one of the big problems that we have to face now is: How are we going to integrate the new, more powerful student voice into the higher education culture? And I don’t think we’ve even begun to address that. And I’ll tell you right now, it is not with student ratings. This is another opportunity, as my administrators say to me, “I have an opportunity for you.”

John: So as we’ve talked about before, last year there was that whole experiment with remote synchronous instruction, where both faculty and students were thrust into new modalities that they were not used to. And there’s a lot of evidence of some significant learning losses, and a change in learning practices that has led to some challenges facing faculty and students as we move back to whatever this new normal happens to be in the middle of a pandemic. How can we address the larger variance in prior learning that students bring into our classes no matter what modality they’re in?

Chuck: Well, what we just experienced is something we knew existed all of the time. What this new experience has done with this very nasty virus is it simply exacerbated those differences. And we are going to have to spend some time, I think, devoting our institutions to how we can recover students. Because clearly, in my mind’s eye, the most vulnerable among our students are the worst impacted by what has happened in the last year and a half. Yet again, John, it is not evenly distributed. Unfortunately, it is unfairly distributed. There’s a great book that I just read, called The Class Ceiling. There’s a distinct wealth advantage in this country, people who are exposed to resources and stuff did much better in this environment than people who are not. And we’re going to have to spend some time trying to recover from that. And frankly, I don’t know how at the moment, I really don’t know how. I hope it hasn’t been too disastrous for us, but it has not been a good scene. As Patsy has said, people have tended to conflate what we did in the last two years with online learning, and they shouldn’t be doing that, but they do it. You know it, you know it, and I know it.

Patsy: We’re also seeing enrollment starting to drop. And I think one of the things that’s going to be really important for institutions to do is keep track of: Who are we losing if our enrollment goes down? Because I suspect it’s going to be some of those people who are our underserved population to really are now, through impact of COVID, forced to do something other than go to higher education. Either they can’t afford to do this, or they have to work full-time more than before, care for family, something… but it’ll be really interesting to see. I don’t think we’re quite there yet. We’re starting to see trends. And I think I’ve heard that across multiple institutions in terms of enrollments. We knew enrollment was going down prior to COVID. But now we’re starting to see some of it is maybe more than we expected. So I agree with you, John, I think it’s going to be important for us to really track that and figure out what’s happening and how we can adjust our instruction and whatever we have to do to bolster and help students succeed, whether it’s due to our instruction, or just no fault of their own due to last year. I think we need to try to figure out how to do that.

Rebecca: There’s a lot of shifting expectations that have happened as a result of the pandemic, in addition to, you know, “What is online learning, right?” And what people have experienced as emergency teaching, but also just other expectations around time commitments, flexibility, taking care of mental health, like all kinds of expectations have just shifted wildly from [LAUGHTER] maybe the way that they were before from both the student perspective and the faculty perspective and the institutional perspective. So I think there’s a lot of shifting that’s going to continue to go on as we all try to adapt to what’s going on around us.

Patsy: Absolutely, I agree with that. I think a lot of human resources departments are going to have to figure out how they need to adjust [LAUGHTER] some of their long-set-in-stone policies because we are evolving. I’m not sure we know where we’re evolving to yet, not there. So we’ll find out.

Chuck: Rebecca, I think you’ve hit on the problem of the century, in terms of… How are we going to re-examine our institution in terms of what our value structure is, what we have been, and what we need to be in the future? I’ve read a wonderful book now called Subtract, where the point is made that every time we try to improve, we add something. We never think about jettisoning anything that we have done, and it may be time for us to begin to consider what are some things that we have been doing that are no longer effective and they need to go. It may be painful, but I I think it’s a lesson we’re going to have to address. It’s just a marvelous notion, you just never think about dumping something. We’re going to add in more… give us more resources, give us more faculty, give us more this, give us more that and we’ll do a better job. Will you? I don’t know, I don’t know.

John: One of the things that I’ve been really impressed with is all the research you’ve been doing on blended learning. And one outcome of some of that research, as well as the work of other people, has been that series of books on Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Could you tell us a little bit about how this collection of research came about?

Chuck: Well, since I’m the old guy here I can tell you exactly how it came about. Frank Mayadas allowed us to fund three summits at the University of Illinois, Chicago, run by Mary Niemiec, dear colleague of mine. 30 of us got together and discussed this notion of blended learning. And what we did is we discussed, in three groups of ten, three topics: quality—God forbid, I’m glad I wasn’t in that one—and the second one, logistics, and the third one, research. And Tony Picciano and I were in the one: research. And we were in a two-day meeting and finally Tony leaned to me and said, “This is not going anywhere. Where are we going to go with this, in terms of research?” Then the next morning, he got up and said, “We need to do a book.” So the first thing we did is we entered the meeting, he said, “We’re going to do a book,” and we got those people who are interested in doing a book. And then, at that time Sloan was running a conference on blended learning, and so Tony and I went and made a pitch about this initial book that Sloan published in terms of blended learning. And there was tremendous interest in it, and all kinds of people submitted chapters. So we had a book that Sloan published. There was a book and it went out. And then it was successful. In this niche market, a book of 1000 is successful, it’s not like Shades of Grey. And then we got to thinking with Charles Graham, ‘How about doing another one?’ And we went back to Routledge and they said, “Yeah, we see that that book was successful. So we’ll do another one.” And we did the second in the series for them. And then thirdly, they came to ask, they said, “The book did so well…” whatever that meant “…we’d like you to do a third version.” And that’s the motivation for the third book. We got a trilogy on this because Frank Mayadas didn’t like blended learning. But he’s a convert now, he’s come around in doing this. And the last book, we really jacked up the quality because we added Patsy to doing this. And now we’re moving on to a book on analytics and adaptive learning. I’ve got to stop writing books. That’s how it happened. It happened by accident.

Rebecca: Many great things do.

Chuck: Oh, they do.

John: Are there any other things you’d like to add?

Chuck: I’d like to address the fact that I think how valuable your podcasts have been for education and the nation. And I think we’re talking about a classic example of what we’re talking about. Look what’s happened over the last years: the value and importance of doing podcasts. Obviously, yours is one of the premier, and I’m not stroking you, you know I don’t need to stroke you. But the notion of this is another modality for learning that we never really considered, right? And this is what we have to do. What are these things? Cherry pick the things that are really working.

Rebecca: So we always ask and wrap up by asking, “What’s next?”

Chuck: Patsy, what’s next for you? Cause I know what’s next for me.

Patsy: Well, yeah, what’s next… wow… is surviving COVID. That’s number one. I think that’s our top priority right now, making it out of the pandemic and figuring out where we’re going to evolve to, as we’ve already talked about. Chuck and I have this book that we’re just now working on, which is data analytics and adaptive learning. So that’s coming down the pipe. And I don’t know, for me, it’s like trying to figure out how to continue to help facilitate research and enjoy what I’m doing, trying to make a difference with as many students and as many faculty as we can. So yeah. That and counting down the days to retirement because I know that’s what Chuck’s going to say. But I have a lot longer, I think, on the track than you Chuck, right?

Chuck: This is my 52nd year at UCF, formerly FTU. I think what’s going to be in the future, for me, will be retirement, but it will also be trying to reflect on what we have learned in this educational enterprise and what we need to learn as we go forward with this. Personally, it is going to be, John, and you know about this, I will be moving over to working with our underserved communities to try to solve the problems of inequity that is so crippling our educational system, and we need to work on that. But those are the kinds of things. I guess I would say thank you for having us again, and we look forward to hearing what we had to say. Right, patty?

Patsy: Yeah, it’s been a lot of fun.

Rebecca: Thank you both.

Chuck: You guys are great.

John: One thing I do want to mention is that we also had a podcast with Chuck, where he did talk about some of the ways of working with this in Episode 115, where Chuck and Harris Rosen talked about the Tangelo Park project.

Chuck: Just as an aside, the Travel and Leisure Co. has adopted another community based on what we’ve done, John, in the Eatonville community. And we’re very close to a foundation in the Midwest doing the same thing. So we are making progress. Hard as we try to get people to replicate it. I think we’re at four now.

Rebecca: That’s great!

Chuck: Yeah, it is great. It is great. And it really does work.

John: Well, thank you. It’s great talking to you always. And we’re looking forward to sharing this with our listeners.

Chuck: We really appreciate your thinking of us. We really do. Go Lakers!

John: Go Knights!

Chuck: Take care, everybody.

John: Thank you.

Chuck: Thank you so much. Bye bye.

Patsy: Thanks, guys.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer. Editing assistance provided by Anna Croyle.

[MUSIC]

215. Resilient Pedagogy

The global pandemic resulted in rapid and dramatic changes in instructional practices. These transitions were supported by many resources created and publicly shared by teaching centers and instructional designers. In this episode, Travis Thurston joins us to discuss a superb open access resource on resilient pedagogy that he and his colleagues created with contributions from many thought leaders in higher ed.

Shownotes

Transcript

John: The global pandemic resulted in rapid and dramatic changes in instructional practices. These transitions were supported by many resources created and publicly shared by teaching centers and instructional designers. In this episode, we discuss the creation of a superb open access resource on resilient pedagogy created by one teaching center with contributions from many thought leaders in higher ed.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners.

[MUSIC]

John: Our guest today is Travis Thurston. Travis is the Director of the Office of Empowering Teaching Excellence at Utah State University. He is also one of the creators of and editors of Resilient Pedagogy: Practical Teaching Strategies to Overcome Distance, Disruption, and Distraction. Jessamyn Neuhaus, the Interim Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at SUNY Plattsburgh, the author of Geeky Pedagogy, and a frequent guest on this podcast will be filling in as a guest host. Welcome, Travis.

Travis: Thank you so much for having me.

Jessamyn: Hi, Travis.

Travis: It’s great to be here, thank you.

John: Today’s teas are… Travis, are you drinking tea?

Travis: I am not, but I am drinking a lovely orange citrus Mountain Dew Kickstart.

John: Very good.

Jessamyn: Do you need a little burst of energy, Travis? [LAUGHTER]

Travis: Like I always need a little burst of energy. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: I’m drinking some kind of wild orange tea, I just finished it. Really getting wild over here in Plattsburgh. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I am drinking a Tea Forté black currant tea.

Jessamyn: Fancy.

Travis: Very nice.

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss Resilient Pedagogy, an open-access anthology that’s designed to assist faculty in addressing the disruptions and challenges associated with a global pandemic and other forms of social stress. How did this project come about?

Travis: This really came about because right at the start of the pandemic here in the United States, this was March 2020, I got really sick after attending a regional Teaching for Learning Conference here in Utah… got home and went to my local clinic here, and it was before we even had COVID testing available in our area. And it ended up being about the same week that our university shut down operations and shifted to emergency remote teaching. And I ended up getting really sick, and I was out for over three weeks. And so I actually missed all of our transition to emergency remote teaching, which I know that actually seems like a good space to be [LAUGHTER] given what most of us experienced. But for me, as someone who has been an instructional designer and supports faculty regularly in their teaching, it was a moment for me where I felt like I wasn’t able to do my part. And so into that summer of 2020, as folks were discussing what we can do moving forward… Jessamyn and I are connected on Twitter, and there’s such a fantastic presence with folks on Twitter. I definitely lean on my community in Twitter. But I saw folks like Josh Eyler discussing this concept of resilient pedagogy, and it really resonated with me. We were in the process of teaching our faculty how to do blended learning for those who hadn’t. And so, as I was thinking about these terms and thinking about how we could support our faculty, we started talking with a few of the folks here at our university, specifically Chris González, who’s a faculty member, and Kacy Lundstrom, who is in our library here. And we decided to take on this project, this idea of putting together the book, as a way to share these strategies that can support faculty members, and ultimately can support our students.

John: A very timely project. [LAUGHTER] You more than made up for your absence right at the start of this. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Travis, how did you find the authors for this collection?

Travis: Yeah, great question. Speaking of Twitter, we put together a call for chapters, and we pushed that out on our social media channels. And we had dozens and dozens of fantastic chapter proposals. And so we went through a process of just blind reviewing all of the proposals that we received, and then selected the 15 that ended up publishing in the chapters. And so we landed with about five of those chapters coming from authors here at USU and 10 of those coming from folks external.

John: And you released this as an open-access text. We really appreciate the fact that you did. [LAUGHTER] Why did you choose the open-access format for it?

Travis: We decided to go the open-access route for a few reasons. One, it was a way for us to get these ideas out in a timely manner, of course. But really, it ties back to our purpose in putting it together in the first place, to try to share it with as many folks as we could. And we felt like an open-access volume would help us to achieve that.

Jessamyn: So the first section of this text deals with theory and foundations. What are some of the major principles of resilient course design?

Travis: That is a perfect question. And I think it’s actually quite pertinent because as we jumped into putting this book together, we challenged the authors not to just stick with one idea or one definition of resilient pedagogy. We kind of left it up to each of them to parse out what they thought resilient pedagogy meant. And so you’ll see in, like, chapter four, Rebecca Quintana and her colleagues there, they had been doing a MOOC on resilient pedagogy in the summer of 2020, taking a lot of these ideas of resilience from other fields, and then applying them to education and what we do with course design. So, in their chapter, they talk about these three principles of extensibility, flexibility, and redundancy, which we see in architecture or even in environmental fields, where we’re trying to support and sustain whatever it is we’re engaging with. So for me, when I start thinking about resilient design and resilient pedagogy, those three concepts definitely come to mind. How can we extend what we’re doing into different modalities that also ties into things like Universal Design for Learning, specifically with our students? How can we provide for multiple means of engagement or multiple means of expression within our courses? The idea of flexibility, I think, is something a lot of us have ran with the last 18 months or so in finding ways that we can not only be flexible with our course design, but also be flexible with each other. And what I mean by that is with our colleagues as we’re working on courses and with our students, as we’re thinking about the requirements that we have. And then I think a great one is this redundancy, which is not only helpful in general as a practice in the learning science of adding in redundancy. But as Jacob Fortman pointed out—he’s another author of that fourth chapter—he was teaching a course on virtual reality, which they typically have resources for within a brick-and-mortar face-to-face setting, and can provide support and troubleshooting. But when they started teaching that in a remote setting and they’re sending this equipment out, they can’t necessarily sit down and troubleshoot with every student. So they started developing additional support materials that can be used for students at a distance. So to answer your question, when I start thinking about resilient pedagogies, resilient design, those three concepts really stand out to me as a starting place for us.

Jessamyn: I always thought redundancy had negative connotations. But I must say, now, the more reminders I get, the more calendar shout outs I get to remember where I was supposed to be, when “Oh, what was I supposed to do here, there?” The more the better. So I definitely incorporate that into my teaching as well.

John: That example you mentioned about moving from a brick-and-mortar institution to online with classes, reminds me of a general issue that came up, in that it was fairly easy to ignore the inequities that our students face when they’re all on campus, when they all have access to computer labs, to the campus network, campus printing facilities, the library, and so forth. But when people moved online, the inequities that our students face in their day-to-day lives became much more visible to faculty. What are some lessons we should take forward from this period of remote teaching that we can use to help create a more equitable environment going forward?

Travis: There’s a couple of things that our institution ended up doing that I think, as we’ve been discussing it, are things we’re going to continue doing. Which when we talk through them seem like, “Well, why weren’t we doing this before?” Like, “Why weren’t we providing these things before?” And they’re things as simple as checking out laptops to students that don’t have technology. Our institution is the land-grant university here in Utah, so we have over 30 campuses across the state. So, for example, at some of our campuses that are in rural Utah, we actually had to set up Wi-Fi areas for students to be able to come and even access the internet to be able to be online doing their work. So there’s really simple things like that, in providing access to the technology, to the infrastructure, that is like a basic necessity to even be able to start doing this work. So from that standpoint, then when we even start thinking about how when students are maybe a little bit cautious to turn their camera on, to show their surroundings, or they keep their mic muted because they’re engaging in childcare while they’re trying to attend class. Or things like this that, like you said, John, are things that were easy to overlook when everyone was coming into the same space. But there are things that we should be thinking about and that we should be providing accommodations for our students and really adapting what we do to fit the needs of the students that we have.

Jessamyn: Switching away a little bit from the student-centered, I have a question. As the pandemic drags on, I’ve started to hear from faculty who are feeling overwhelmed and unable to do any new thing. The returns on their big pedagogical learning, the new things they’re doing are kind of small. And as a thought leader in education, Sherri Spelic, recently tweeted, “I’m tired of being resilient.” The word itself might be taking on some negative, toxic positivity. So how can we encourage faculty to do this to make their courses more resilient without placing a big, additional burden on them or resorting to rose-colored glasses?

Travis: I think I saw that tweet myself, and I may have retweeted it. [LAUGHTER] Because I think it really is pertinent right now for us to think about. There are so many demands on our time. And there are so many inequities and things that we could be trying to account for and trying to adjust for that, yes, we are tired of being resilient. So one of the things, as we were producing this book, I reached out to Jesse Stommel, who again is a fantastic person to follow on Twitter, because he had a tweet over the summer of 2020 with his list of words that he hopes he never hears again, one of which was resilient. [LAUGHTER] And so, I actually asked him if he would be willing to write the foreword for this book, to really play with that term and talk about those differences. And one of the points that I love that he makes in that forward, is that when we talk about resilience, it’s generally coming from a perspective of privilege. That we have the privilege to be resilient, which sometimes gets pushed onto our students, “Well, you know, if you just try harder.” But I think the same can be said with our faculty, and I think that’s why a lot of us have felt that the negative connotation to that term is because we feel like, “Well, you know, just keep doing what you’re doing and be resilient and you’ll get through this.” That was a long preface to my answer here. But for me, what we can do is just continue to make those small steps, make the small changes. For me, I try to emphasize this with the faculty that I support here at USU, that teaching excellence really is a journey. And so we’re just going to keep taking one step at a time as we keep moving forward. And sometimes, yeah, we’re gonna have to step off the trail and take a breather, and that is okay, that is okay. The other thing that I try to remind our folks here is that they don’t have to go at it alone. We have a robust community here—librarians, instructional designers, multimedia professionals, folks here in faculty development like myself—who really care deeply about teaching and learning. And I care deeply about our instructors and our students. And so, making sure that they are able to connect with those people that can lift them up and can support them when they are tired of being resilient.

John: During the period of emergency remote teaching many people were offering classes in this online synchronous manner, and some of that has continued into the following academic year. That differs quite a bit from what two of the authors on chapter three of this anthology, Noffs and Wilson, refer to as optimal online learning. Would you say that this transition and this form of emergency teaching gave some faculty and students a somewhat false sense of what constitutes online learning?

Travis: In a short answer, yes, I do. [LAUGHTER] And we’ve seen this in articles in The Chronicle or opinion pieces here and there, where folks are like, “Well, we tried online learning and it didn’t work.” And for someone who has studied instructional design, and specifically online course design, and has worked designing courses for years and years, what the majority of us were doing during that time was not what we would call “optimal online learning.” [LAUGHTER] And as my kids would remind me, research on this topic was going on back in the 1900s, as my kids would say, we had research on online learning back in the 90s. And a lot of that was, at first a lot of it incorporated synchronous engagement, where we were getting on some sort of technology and engaging with our students, probably with giant headsets. In fact, here in our building at Utah State where our office is located, we’re in the distance education building. And there’s this one particular hallway that has all these pictures of what distance learning looked like before. [LAUGHTER] And so there’s one picture down the hall that has the picture of some professors that they call the “Flying Professors” that would literally get on an airplane and fly to different campuses across the state to bring distance learning. There’s this other great picture of a professor putting this giant laser disc into a machine. [LAUGHTER] And then our very first real interesting innovation was that they had this trackpad that they could write on that would transmit the image to another location, all these interesting innovations. And so I look at things like that and then I look at what we were doing with emergency remote teaching during COVID, and I think exactly that. Like, we just had the wrong sense of what online learning is because there are mountains of research on what good online courses and what good online teaching looks like. And so, for me, and for us, the work is to continue to share those principles, not only as we are starting to shift back to face-to-face. But pre-pandemic, one thing I would always sit down with faculty members and say—when they’re coming to me and they’re going to be designing an online course for the first time, they’ve never taught online and they’re worried about it, they’re concerned about it—I would just tell them, “Good teaching is good teaching. And so it’s going to look different, it’s going to feel different in an online setting. But you have support, and there are strategies and there are ways to get to know your students that have been working for years, and we’re going to help you get there.” And I don’t want to be too critical of our approaches, because we literally were on the fly trying to change modalities. And typically, when we design a new online course, we spend months in development of that course, and training, not three days or a week. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Not three days, while your brain is about to explode trying to cope with a totally unprecedented situation.

Travis: Exactly. All the trauma of a worldwide pandemic, and social justice movements, and all the things going on in the world. Not to mention, I forgot to mention this earlier, but we have students who are food insecure or housing insecure. And so, yeah, of course these things are not going to take precedence, and shouldn’t, we’ve got to take care of each other. But yeah, there are definitely principles and things that we can do that are more effective than some of the emergency remote teaching that happened.

Jessamyn: Following up on that, can you give us some examples of some specific things, some steps that faculty can take, to design courses that are more equitable and more resilient to changing conditions?

Travis: One of my favorite suggestions comes from chapter one with Lindsay Masland. And she begins by giving this great self-determination theory approach to teaching and learning. And an aspect of that is that, as humans, we have this need for autonomy. And for this sense that we have some control and that we’re agents of our own learning. And so we can actually build those things into our courses. And so I would definitely start small with this, there are ways that you could build this into an entire course, but I would start small with an assignment. Look at one assignment and say, “Is this an assignment that I could allow for some choice?” And what I mean by that is: If this is traditionally a written assignment, does it need to be a written assignment? Or have we just always done it as a written assignment? Are there other ways that students could demonstrate their knowledge or understanding for this particular concept? So I would start small with something like that. We actually looked at this pre-COVID because we work closely with our Center for Student Analytics here at Utah State University. So I kind of look at it as a 360-degree type thing. We look at what’s working well for students, and then we think about… How can we enhance that by providing faculty development that helps folks to incorporate these things that are helping students more into their course? And then again, we kind of just cycle through and see what’s working. So one thing we found that was working really well for students was providing simple navigation in their Canvas course. We use the Canvas LMS, and for instructors who were using the tools we have to put in a syllabus to organize some topic or weekly modules, we actually found that, overall, students had an increase in persistence at the university when they were taking one of these courses. But more interestingly, we found that first-gen students who took those courses had almost a 3% bump in persistence when they were engaging in a course where an instructor had taken the time to organize the course well. So we know from the literature and research that when students’ cognitive load is reduced, like, they’re not trying to find where to go or what the assignment is, they can spend more of that effort, more of that brainpower, on the actual learning in the class. So yeah, there’s some small things we can do.

John: And that reminds me of the findings that Viji Sathy and Kelly Hogan found in terms of the importance of providing students with more structure in reducing the achievement gaps for first-gen students. There’s quite a bit of research showing that that’s very helpful.

Travis: Absolutely.

John: Section two of the anthology focuses on reflection and practice. You’ve talked about some of the practices that could be helpful, but what are some other specific practices suggested by authors in this collection?

Travis: There’s too many to choose from, honestly. But some of my favorite ones… one comes from Jenae Cohn, who’s fantastic. I love her work outside of this book, but in this book it’s great too. [LAUGHTER] Specifically, she talks about the need for us to build digital literacy skills directly into our courses. So this isn’t a new concept, but I love the spin that she takes on it in saying that, “As more of these courses are using digital elements, we need to be teaching our students how to engage in effective ways with those resources, and building those skills and those supports directly into the course.” So, for example, we have this myth of the digital native, who they were just born to know exactly how to click on the right button in our course. Like, that’s just not a thing.

Jessamyn: No. [LAUGHTER] Have yet to meet one. [LAUGHTER]

Travis: Exactly. So I love that she points out that there are very specific scaffolds, this kind of goes back to that structure thing, there are very specific scaffolds that we can build in, and things we can do to get to know the students in our courses and provide what they need to be successful in our class. So that’s a great one. Another one that I really like is Kevin Kelly and Rebecca Campbell, they talk about what they call “VHS,” which for someone in my age group resonates well. They talk about VHS as a virtual homework sprint. And again, this kind of builds off of what Jenae’s talking about, where you build in time to your course to help students work on projects, and to be productive in what they’re doing. So they frame this in a way that you actually can get together in a synchronous way. You provide some time and space to get to know each other, exchange what’s going on in your life, those types of things. And then you set out with a specific goal, like, “This is the thing that I want to accomplish in the next hour.” And then from there, you can break into small groups, you can break out individually. I kind of picture this… for me in Zoom, I can throw folks out into different breakout groups. And then as the instructor, I can jump around and see where they need help, where there’s some additional support that they could use. And then about halfway through that time period, we come back together, we say, “Great, what progress have you made? What barriers did you hit that you still need support?” And then you kind of go through that cycle again, similarly to what you might see in a work sprint in a tech company or something like that. You provide that scaffolding, that time and support. And really, it’s modeling how to be efficient in getting some of that work done, and how to feel, and giving students access to the help that they need.

Jessamyn: I love that example of how to use Zoom strategically and effectively. It could be very, very effective used that way, I think.

Travis: I know, because sometimes I get caught up in this, “Well, I need to push them into breakout groups for a discussion thing,” and… Well, why don’t we actually focus on some of the work that we need to do and give individualized feedback as we go? So I love the recommendation for that VHS.

John: Not Betamax, it has to be VHS. [LAUGHTER]

Travis: Now we’re aging ourselves, John. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Help, I’m trapped in a Squadcast room with two very nerdy tech guys.

John: And that’s coming from the author of Geeky Pedagogy. [LAUGHTER]

Travis: I love it. Another one… again there’s so many… but my last one I’m going to point out comes from Miriam Moore, and she talks about this idea of getting out of the PPR box with online discussions… the prompt, post, reply box… that we get stuck in. This is something that we see quite often with online discussions. It’s not a new thing to the pandemic, this is common in general. And one of my favorite ways to picture this came from a 2016 article. It’s actually an idea paper by Shannon Riggs and Katie Linder, and they talked about it in terms of an architecture of engagement which I think is just so perfect. But they do this setting, like, picture yourself standing in front of this lecture hall—this small lecture hall, 30 students or something—and you’re teaching this face-to-face class and you want to have a discussion. You would not ask the question, and then go through one by one and have every single student respond to the exact same question. And then you would not, further, go through and want every single one of them to comment on something. I love the visual they created with that because it feels so ridiculous. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Oh, it’s so awkward. The awkwardness is making me nervous. [LAUGHTER]

Travis: Exactly. So that’s what Miriam’s talking about with this kind of getting away from that PPR box, thinking of ways to engage students in real discussion where they can co-create some of these things within the dialog. And so, I talk about this a little bit in the digital power-up strategy. I won’t go too deep into that, but it’s the idea that rather than using a specific question, that you give students different prompts as entry points into the discussion. And it allows them to make the post relevant to themselves, bringing in their own personal experiences, their different backgrounds, into the class. And my colleague, Dr. Mitchell Colver, he kind of describes this as if our online course is a box, a cardboard box if we picture it that way, when we invite students into that box, it should change the box. And so that’s really what we’re trying to do with our online discussions. We want them to be a space for dialogue, for co-construction of knowledge. And we want it to be a space where students can really work with each other and grow and learn along the way.

John: We always end with the question, “What’s next?”

Travis: Yeah, I really love that question actually, so I’m glad you ask it on your podcasts. For us, what’s next with Resilient Pedagogy is really continuing the work. A lot of us were doing this work of teaching and learning before the pandemic, and really, it just continues. Again, one of the points that Jesse Stommel makes in his foreword of this book, is he calls out this line from Lindsay Masland in chapter one where she says, “Do we really need a thing such as resilient pedagogy?” And I love that Jesse says, “We probably don’t.” [LAUGHTER] Because what we actually need is just everyone to continue thinking about teaching in a reflexive way, trying to teach the students we have, and find ways that are going to help us to be successful as instructors and as students. And so for us, it’s just continuing to build those communities and those supports. And so for me, what I really hope comes out of this book that we were able to put together is that it continues to spark ideas, and continues to spark conversations about the things that we can do to continue to improve teaching and learning.

John: It’s a wonderful anthology. I really enjoyed reading it and I’ve shared it with our faculty on campus several times in the past and will continue to do so. Thank you.

Travis: That’s fantastic. Thank you so much.

Jessamyn: Thank you so much, I really enjoyed this conversation. Two of my favorite guys in faculty development.

Travis: Thanks Jessamyn.

John: It was great talking to both of you today.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

211. What Inclusive Instructors Do

Our students bring a rich diversity in their life experiences, skills, and prior knowledge to our classrooms. In this episode, Tracie Marcella Addy, Derek Dube, Khadijah A. Mitchell, and Mallory E. SoRelle join us to discuss how we can create inclusive classroom communities in which student diversity is treated as an asset and where all students feel a sense of belonging. Tracie, Derek, Khadijah, and Mallory are the authors of What Inclusive Do: Principles and Practices for Excellence in College Teaching.

Shownotes

Transcript

John: Our students bring a rich diversity in their life experiences, skills, and prior knowledge to our classrooms. In this episode, we discuss how we can create inclusive classroom communities in which student diversity is treated as an asset and where all students feel a sense of belonging.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners..

[MUSIC]

John: Our guests today are the authors of What Inclusive Instructors Do: Principles and Practices for Excellence in College Teaching. Could you each introduce yourselves to our listeners?

Tracie: Absolutely, my name is Tracie Addy and I’m the Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.

Derek: Hello, I’m Derek Dube. I’m an Associate Professor of Biology and the Director for the Center for Student Research and Creative Activity at the University of St. Joseph in Connecticut.

Mallory: I’m Mallory SoRelle, and I’m an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

Khadijah: Hello, my name is Khadijah Mitchell. I am the Peter d’Aubermont Scholar of Health and Life Sciences and Assistant Professor of Biology at Lafayette College.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are… Tracie, are you drinking any tea today?

Tracie: Yes, I’m actually drinking Twinings peppermint tea. I like peppermint.

Rebecca: Yum!

Derek: Today I am just drinking your standard run-of-the-mill tap water.

Rebecca: Always a good option.

Mallory: I’ve got some green tea with lemongrass and mint today because I needed a little kick of caffeine

Rebecca: A mint team around here.

Khadijah: Well, I really don’t need to be drinking caffeine. [LAUGHTER] So I am drinking AHA sparkling water. It’s orange and grapefruit.

John: And I am drinking Twinings mixed berry black tea, because I need a bigger kick of caffeine.

Rebecca: I got here late and didn’t have time to make tea, and it’s really hot, and so I have a glass of water. And this is the first time I’ve ever not had tea for Tea for Teaching. But this is a very inclusive crowd, so I know it’s going to be okay.

John: Could you tell us a little bit about the origin of this book project?

Tracie: Yes, I can share about that. So, we were very interested in a lot of different research questions around inclusive teaching, for example: What predicts whether instructors adopt inclusive teaching? What are the barriers that they face? As well as, what can we do to kind of move this forward at institutions? So initially, we were very kind of research-minded, and we noticed that there were other questions that we could explore. Also, in our study, that I know later one of my co-authors will talk about in more depth. And those questions were, “What do inclusive instructors do?” So we ended up collecting a lot of really interesting information about the practices of inclusive instructors. And so that led us to think… Wow, wouldn’t it be wonderful to put this all together into a beautiful story that included the voices of instructors, that included instructors across disciplines, across institution types, across ranks, etc., and put it together in a guide that would really be practical, that would help instructors really think about inclusive teaching in a very practical way? So that essentially initiated this project. And I invited my co-authors who are joining today to partake with me in this project to write the book, and I thought of each of them for very specific reasons. And I value, very much so, their contributions and what they did around inclusion. And we kind of put it all together, and we worked together on this great work. Now, this is also coupled with more studies, some of which have been published as well, that kind of get into this big picture, thinking about inclusive teaching, thinking about… What do we do? How do we do it? And then even further, How do we actually enact it? What are the barriers we face? And how do we overcome or address those barriers?

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about what inclusive teaching is, and why it’s important, to kick off our conversation today?

Tracie: Yes and I think it’s so important to define our terms here so that everybody starts off on the same page. So when we talk about inclusive teaching, and especially in the book What Inclusive Instructors Do, we’re talking about teaching that is creating a classroom environment that’s welcoming, so students feel a sense of belonging to the actual classroom setting. And we’re also talking about, that it’s equitable, and it’s thinking about the diversity of learners, and it’s very responsive to that diversity in the classroom. So we’re kind of joining here, this idea of belonging, as well as this idea of equity together, and all the practices, which are many, that we can actually use in our classrooms to be inclusive. And with regards to, “Why is it important?”… inclusive teaching has always been important. Inclusive teaching is excellence in teaching. We publish this book now, but this has historically always been a critical area to think about in teaching and learning. And some of the reasons why… well first, there’s a history of exclusion at institutions of higher education, some are able to be educated and have these experiences, and some are not. And there’s also a lot of good research around thinking about that and belonging. There’s clear research that ties belonging to academic achievement, it ties it to wellbeing for students, and many other important things that we know are really important for students’ success in college. Also, we teach diverse students in many of our institutions. So it really behooves us to really think about that and that diversity. And so it’s important now, it’s always been important. I know, with all of the things happening in our nation, there have been more calls and more attention towards inclusion and equity. But I will say, as I’ve said already, that it’s always been important to actually have environments in our classrooms that students feel as if they belong. We know that that’s a place where students can feel excluded.

John: You also conducted a survey of faculty about inclusive teaching practices. Could you tell us a little bit about the survey that you used?

Derek: Sure. So I’m happy to share a bit about that. Now, as Tracie had mentioned, there’s four of us that worked as co-authors on this book, and we all have different experiences, and backgrounds, and expertises, and roles at our institution. But we didn’t want this book to be just our voices and our four experiences, we wanted it to be much more than that. So with that in mind, we dove into the literature around inclusive teaching—what’s published, what’s the research out there—but really to figure out what’s going on right now and what are inclusive instructors doing, we wanted to have as broad a swath as possible. So working together we created a national survey on inclusive teaching, an inclusive teaching questionnaire, and we shared this both directly to various institutions of various different rank and style, master’s institutions, doctoral institutions, community college liberal arts institutions. We also connected with listservs, and social media, and directly with instructors as ways to share this out. This survey was given for about a month to two months in early 2019. And in the end, we ended up having about 566 participants that had started the survey, over 300 of which reached the end of the survey, and over 200 of which responded to all of the questions that we asked. And it was really interesting, because when we looked at the demographics and the backgrounds of those who responded, we saw a wide range of individuals from different types of institutions, male and female, various backgrounds, various disciplines, whether they were tenure track or not, and also the fields that they worked in. So we really felt like we got a good feel of a variety of different instructors being able to speak to what inclusive teaching means to them, what they’re doing, and how they see it at their institution. Also, geographically, we had respondents from the northeast, from the southeast, from the northwest, from the southwest, and everywhere in between, which was really nice to see as well. So when we did this survey, as Tracie mentioned, we had a few different things that we wanted to know some of them were… What are instructive pedagogies? What are inclusive instructors doing right now? But also, What are barriers they’re facing? What experiences for training have they had? How confident do they feel in their own ability to teach in equitable and inclusive ways? So all of these things were pieces of information that we were able to get from this broader swath and bring in and really pull in and really allow, in a lot of ways, those voices to be the voice of the book.

John: So a very inclusive approach to developing a book on inclusive teaching.

Derek: That was the idea, yeah.

Rebecca: In your first chapter of the book, you suggest that faculty should treat student diversity as an asset rather than employing deficit models that we definitely have experienced in our own educations and perhaps in our institutions. Can you describe ways that faculty can convey this message to students through their instructional practices and actually take advantage of these assets?

Mallory: Sure thing, that’s a great question. So, the idea that we should approach differences in background, experience, personality, skill sets, as an asset to the learning environment, something that improves the learning environment instead of a challenge to be overcome or an obstacle we have to deal with, was one of the most, I think, significant themes that comes out both in the scholarship around inclusive teaching, but also in the words of the folks in our survey. And a lot of examples came out in people’s responses about how they go about doing this in practice. And that begins with course design and syllabus with things like incorporating diverse perspectives in the material you’re assigning in class to demonstrate the value of these different perspectives. It comes from incorporating welcoming statements in a syllabus that explicitly state the value of multiple perspectives in the classroom and devising participatory strategies that are designed to bring those out. It also includes trying to build assignments that take an asset-based approach. I’ll give you an example of one, in a group project where you ask students to identify some of their different strengths: Are you good at researching? Are you good at writing? Are you good at editing? Are you good at presenting? And putting groups together that assemble students who identified different strengths and having them talk about those. The idea that not all students have to be good at every one thing, that we all bring these different strengths to the table. And one of the things that I think is really important for this asset-based approach is knowing something about what those assets are in your classroom. And that requires knowing something about who is in your classroom. So one of the things we also talk about in the book that I think is a good tool for helping to treat diversity as an asset set in the classroom is what we call a “Who’s in Class?” form, which is a form that can be given anonymously to students at the beginning of the semester, to just help and identify what are some of the social identities in the classroom, some of the skills people bring to the classroom, some of the different perspectives that students are bringing to the classroom, to give instructors more of a sense of what that diversity is, and how that can be used over the course of the semester to really improve the learning experience for everyone.

Rebecca: So I’m curious, with a survey like that to learn who’s in the classroom, are those results something that we should be sharing out to students and having a conversation about?

Mallory: Yeah, so I’ll take that and also open it up to Tracie, because she’s done a lot of work in the development of this form. I think the goal is to distribute this, allow anyone who wants to participate anonymously to participate, and then, yes, to share back the aggregate takeaways to the class, because it lets other students know who else is in this class with them. And particularly, I think, for students who might feel like there’s something they’re bringing to the table that maybe they don’t know other students are also bringing to the table. It’s a way of saying, like, “Look, there are lots of folks who are both like you and lots of folks who are not like you. And that’s going to be something that’s going to help us throughout the class this semester.”

Tracie: And I guess I’ll piggyback on that a bit. And I will say, you definitely can share it with your class. I think the important thing is letting your students also know that in aggregate, we will be sharing this. And also, if there’s certain things on there that really does it make sense to share with everybody? …having that discretion too. Because students will share lots of different things on that form, and some of it can be used to introduce this conversation, like Mallory said, and to really think about the diversity of the class. And I know also Khadijah has done things of that nature, she’s actually used the form in her class and done things like that, and has had a lot of positive feedback from students, with that regard. Derek might have done too, I’m not sure, but… [LAUGHTER] I know Khadijah has voiced that to me as well. So I think it’s a good opportunity to really think about who’s in class and a safer way for students… students will often feel more comfortable sharing in that type of format than just asking them without that kind of anonymity tied to it.

Derek: And I can actually just chime in a little bit here too. One of the ideas that Mallory brought up, and then Tracie added to, was getting to know your students. It’s really hard to teach your students in a meaningful and inclusive way if you don’t know who your students are. So finding ways to do that, especially early on in a course—really early, the earlier the better—was really important to us. And that’s where the “Who’s in Class?” form was born. It was born as a way to instead of waiting for, “Okay, I’m going to meet and learn my students throughout the semester, maybe get to know them more at the end with evaluations and things like that,” …what can we do right away? And because the students may not necessarily know us right away, or what our intentions are, we thought that the “Who’s in Class?” form could be most powerful as an anonymous and aggregated way of collecting data. Where students could feel safe, that their privacy was protected, that they could share that information that they wanted the instructor to know, but maybe didn’t want them to know about them in specific. So that’s why we moved that way. Now, in thinking about getting to know your students and being able to really, in a directed way, be inclusive and equitable and support different students with different needs, we do believe that moving from anonymous to a more non-anonymous way of getting that information can be important in a lot of situations. But we think that it’s best when it’s student-directed, when the students decide that they’re comfortable to share that information with the instructor, that’s the time when it’s most likely most appropriate. The “Who’s in Class?” form can be a way to ease into sharing information in a safe way. And then you come, you talk to your class about, “Why did we do the ‘Who’s in Class?’ form? What did we learn in aggregate?” And then you open up and say, “I’m here to extend these conversations, to continue these discussions. I have office hours that are open that you’re welcome to come to and talk to me if there’s any specific thing here that you want me to know that directly relates to you.” I know that Khadijah, at least, has, in some of her courses, used situations where there’s essentially mandatory office hours, I think right in the beginning, like little meet-and-greets where it’s only 5 minutes or 10 minutes, but you’re going to come in and you’re going to meet and you’re going to have an opportunity to talk. And you can share what you want to during that time, but you’re going to get that face-to-face time. And maybe she can talk about that more in a moment or two. But other things that I’ve done, if you have large classes where maybe there’s not a ton of time to have individual meetings with every student, in a lot of my classes, one of the first assignments is an online discussion board using our learning management system, which in my case is Blackboard, where students make a post about themselves and some information about not only them academically, but also their hobbies or interests. They post a picture either of themselves or something that represents themselves. And then there’s an opportunity and encouragement for students to reply in meaningful ways to each other, to get to know each other, because it’s not just about the instructor knowing who’s in the class, but it’s about the class knowing who’s in the class too, for it to be the most positive experience. So that’s been really beneficial. And I as an instructor then take time, and I can do it at nine o’clock after my kids are in bed, to make sure that I respond to each student in a meaningful way and try and make connections where I can, “Oh, you like science fiction, well I’m currently reading this series, we should talk about that sometime,” or things along that line. So I think that starting in a safe, anonymous way like the “Who’s in Class?” form can be a great way to get that ball rolling and, if the students feel comfortable and feel like it would be meaningful, allow them to break that anonymity border by offering opportunity.

John: We’ve been running a reading group along with SUNY Plattsburgh, and this was a topic that was discussed really extensively in one of our meetings, where there was pretty much a consensus that there’s a purpose for both an anonymous form to let people express things that they might not be comfortable revealing, but then also giving students the opportunity to share either with just the instructor, perhaps through meetings, or if it’s a larger class, a discussion forum, or Flipgrid, or VoiceThread, or some other way where they can share their identities with other people. And I think the consensus was, there’s a good purpose for each of these, and some combination might be really helpful.

Khadijah: One thing I just want to add on to what everyone is saying is that the “Who’s in Class?” form has been transformative for my classroom spaces. And I know Derek brought up something about large class size and thinking about large classes, it even can help with that. But I think we also need to think about the other end of the bell curve, very small classes, because even though someone may be not identified, there’s some aspects of their identity that could then disclose who they are. So I think that we also need to be mindful of that. For example, clearly there are visible aspects of our identity that would be able to disclose what a particular student was in a small setting, that would not be as much of an issue with a large setting. But I do think that there is so much power in that. And speaking to what Derek mentioned about the essential office hours, so for every class that I teach, I do use the “Who’s in Class?” form and these essential office hours. And even though the “Who’s in Class?” form is anonymous, people do share with me during these essential office hours, and it really fosters a greater classroom environment in that way.

Rebecca: I love the name essential office hours, I love the emphasis on the “essential.”

Tracie: Absolutely. And I was going to share that the development of the “Who’s in Class?” form was with collaboration with students too. So I asked a number of students about this form, as we were going through the process of creating it, from questions like, “Are these questions that we should ask? How should we implement it or administer this? Would they answer these questions?” And so that was also very helpful. But I will say that working with a number of instructors on the “Who’s in Class?” form in my center, there are a number that actually do have a separate form as well that’s course specific, that’s not anonymous, they add additional questions on that. And then we have all these wonderful variations that, like Khadijah said, the essential office hours and other ways to get to know students, which I think, John, well you mentioned, I think is obviously fabulous. There’s all these different avenues for students to be able to share aspects of themselves with not only the instructor, but as Derek mentioned, with the class. What a wonderful thing that is for building a more inclusive classroom.

John: Once you have this data on who’s in your class, how can you use that to convince students that the diversity of the class is actually an asset to the class? What sort of methods could you use to help convey that message? In particular, how can you avoid issues such as stereotype threat?

Khadijah: Well, I can speak to the first part of your question, John, I think about: what can you do with this data? So I actually summarize the data, and we have a little PowerPoint presentation, and I share that back out to the class so that we appreciate this diversity. I also then go tweak and tailor my classroom to the students that are in the room. So if there are particular issues that may be salient to that group and that population, then we address that as a learning community together. Thinking about stereotype threat, so this is really important, particularly in the discipline that I’m in, in STEM disciplines. So when we think about stereotype threat, we normally think about negative stereotype threat. And that’s the perceived risk of confirming negative stereotypes about a particular social group that a student may be assigned. And what it leads to is this imbalance of how the student’s sense of self, which is typically positive, versus this inconsistent expectation of whatever group that they fall into. And so this is really, really pronounced when we think about various academic disciplines, and notably people who’ve done work in STEM. And what happens is this leads to worse academic performance or a threatened or less of a sense of belonging. So things like the “Who’s in Class?” form that can help with that sense of belonging. I think that there are several evidence-based approaches that we use to mitigate this impact in effect. And the first is really thinking about self-affirmation. So there are a lot of the instructors in our study, and we see the voices in the book. We talk about reinforcing the students’ feelings of integrity and self-worth and that this self-affirmation dramatically reduces the effects of negative stereotype threat. And we know that this can change achievement gaps and bolster this sense of belonging along with initiatives like using this “Who’s in Class?” form. I think one thing to keep in mind is, although we often talk about negative stereotype threat, there also is positive stereotype threat. And so, one way, as instructors, we can combat that, is thinking about the stereotype content model, because this allows for both types of stereotypes. And what happens is this model is a psychological model that’s based on perceptions of warmth and competence. And thinking about particular stereotypes as high or low warmth and competence. And, in particular, we know that inclusive instructors realize that harm can arise from either one of these and depending on visible and invisible identities. So what happens is you can use this stereotype content model across different types of courses, levels, times to acknowledge and reflect on the individual’s own stereotypes, to offer apologies for students that may have resulted in harm, and to carry out actions that would re-establish welcoming spaces. So we like to think about the stereotype content model can be coupled with these three As: acknowledge, apologize, and act. And so that would just be examining your own background and experiences, and apologizing if there’s been any type of misspoken or things that weren’t addressed, and thinking about how to act and take action in the face of some of these stereotypes.

Rebecca: So as we start thinking about some of these ideas, how do we start building these inclusive principles into our course designs? We’ve talked a little bit about the openers, considering some of these ways of acknowledging and recognizing who’s in our spaces, and who’s in our classes, and who’s in our community. But how do we make sure that we continue that thread of inclusivity throughout the entire semester?

Mallory: So I think course design is a really critical tool for inclusive teaching, and particularly the way that manifests in a syllabus. So I’m a political scientist by training, I like to think of a syllabus as a little bit of a constitution. It’s kind of the founding document of your class. It tells us what our common purpose is, it tells us who’s part of this community, it tells us how we act within that community, what we owe to one another, how we participate in that community, and really what we’re doing. And all of those are really integral questions if we’re thinking about inclusive teaching. So in the survey, I would say there are three really broad themes that came out of people’s responses to how they try and enact inclusive practices in syllabus design. And so the first one was really trying to demonstrate that everyone has a place in the field. We think back to what Tracie was saying earlier about belonging, being important, this is an obvious tie-in to that. And so perhaps the most frequent comment that got made in the survey was, probably unsurprisingly, “We should incorporate diverse perspectives on the syllabus,” and also in other course artifacts throughout the semester, but particularly on the syllabus. So that’s one way to demonstrate that everyone has a place in the field. The next big theme that came out was encouraging everyone to play a role in the learning process. And so we could think about that as another form of fostering belonging, but I would also say that’s part of the equity piece as well, providing space for everyone to be an active part of this particular learning community. And so there were a few different ways that came out in people’s responses. So one idea was encouraging everyone to play a role in the learning process by essentially just setting a tone that this will be an inclusive classroom in the syllabus language. So that could incorporate something like having a welcoming or a diversity statement directly in your syllabus. It could also just be the tone of the language you use. Is the language hierarchical? “The professor will do this and the student will do this,” or is it more inclusive? Is it, “Hey, we are doing this, [LAUGHTER] we will talk about these things, we will tackle these assignments.” Another piece of that puzzle was about setting citizenship expectations. If we want everyone to play a role in the learning process, we want to set some expectations for how we’re going to treat one another while we’re doing that. And I think a lot of syllabi are good at setting expectations for what students owe to their faculty. But, one of the things that we talked about a little bit in the chapter that addresses this is also that a syllabus is a good place to set expectations for how students treat one another, but also what faculty owe to students. And so, again, sort of leveling that playing field and establishing we are all in this community, we all play a really important role, we will all have give and take and here’s the responsibilities we have to one another. And then the third theme that came out, in thinking about inclusive course design, was essentially promoting the conditions for everyone to be successful in the course. So that really nails that equity piece. And so, one of the one of the big-picture ways that people implement this is to think about a syllabus as an opportunity to explain to students, not only what you’re doing, which I think most syllabi do a pretty good job of, but also how you can go about doing that successfully, and critically why we’re doing this. So the “what” is sort of setting clear expectations, so that everyone is on the same page about what we’re all trying to accomplish. The “how” is potentially providing resources to help students accomplish those goals. So directing them to the library, directing them to a writing center, if such a center exists. That could also include things like mental health resources to help students navigate the semester, particularly in the past two years that we’ve been having, those can be especially critical. And then also that last one, the “why,” giving a rationale. We all have reasons, hopefully we have reasons, for designing courses in the way that we do. But we often don’t explain those to students. And I think we often forget that students aren’t inside our heads and don’t really know why we’re asking them to do things in a particular way. And so part of setting the conditions for people to be successful is to explain why we’re doing the things we’re doing to students so that they can make strategic choices when they’re in our courses and are trying to be successful in those courses. And then the other really important theme that came out when thinking about promoting conditions for everyone to succeed is, perhaps unsurprisingly, trying to make sure your course design and syllabus are accessible to as many groups as possible. That’s another way that the “Who’s in Class?” form can come in really handy because there are a lot of ways in which we might try to make something accessible to one group that inadvertently becomes less accessible to another. So knowing something about who is in your class, and what some of the accommodations they might need are, can really help you make strategic choices about how to be as accessible as possible. So those were really the big-picture things that came out about how to make your course more inclusive through the design of a syllabus.

Rebecca: Mallory talked a bit about syllabus design and setting a good tone up front, and the survey does that as well. So what are some things that we can do at key touchpoints throughout the course of the semester to keep this feeling of inclusion continuing and that sense of belonging continuing throughout the semester?

Khadijah: So that’s a great question. I would say that welcoming students begins even before the course starts, even before they lay eyes on the syllabus. So I think that you can set this positive tone, you want to think about it like a greeting card, to promote belonging from the beginning. And so we talked about the “Who’s in Class?” form, but even having a video that would welcome them to the course, kind of like a trailer for your class at the beginning. There are things like the physical environment, thinking about that if you’re in person, but if you’re online, think about what are the first images that someone sees when they log on to your learning management course or the course website. Thinking about what type of activities would emphasize diversity and equity and inclusion. And that would be at the beginning, such as the “Who’s in Class?” form, but throughout the semester. And so I think that those things are carried out. Building the relationships with the students are also important throughout the semester. But at the end, I think we never think about how the students, even at the end of a course, feel welcome. It’s never too late. So even on the last day of class, you can highlight as an inclusive instructor, and we saw this throughout our work, how much you’ve learned from the students themselves and thanking them for how much that they taught the instructor. And thinking about, by having this equitable participation that Mallory brought up, that acknowledging that at the end of a course, actually affirms them in their abilities. It encourages them to see themselves as members of that community of practice, and we know this is critical for various disciplines. And wrapping up with giving students a way to reflect and give feedback on how welcome they felt in that environment. And that is really critical, that feedback that they give, for helping make future classrooms more inviting.

John: And you also advocate not just doing that at the end, but also getting feedback from students regularly throughout the semester, I believe. Could you talk a little bit about how you might do that efficiently?

Khadijah: Exactly. So, I think when we think about content, we think about formative and summative assessment. It’s the same thing with the sense of belonging. So you can do a mid-semester check-in. That could be a formal survey, or it could be something as simple as, “What’s working?” I typically take a piece of paper and say, “What’s going great so far?” and “What would we like to work on as a community?” And so that gives equal onus in the shared space in the classroom. But it lets the students know that I’m hearing them and that they belong and what they’re saying is important.

Rebecca: That mid-semester check-in often times well with thinking about advisement and registration for next semester too. So I could imagine really reinforcing a sense of belonging before the continuity of the next semester, or thinking or planning for the future can actually be really useful. And it’s not something I had thought about before, but when you were talking about the end-of-the-semester sense of belonging, our advisement time is coming up right now and registration. So I’m thinking that right now is a really good time to just reinforce and underscore these ideas to make students feel like they really do belong in the spaces that they want to occupy.

John: One of the things we really appreciated in your book was the use of reflection questions. This is something that is really rare in books directed at professional development for faculty. And it probably shouldn’t be, because we all know the benefits of reflection. Could you talk a little bit about the importance of reflection in learning, both for students and for faculty?

Tracie: Yeah, I think that’s a great question and I’m very happy that you appreciated that. We were thinking very intentionally as we were thinking about designing the book in that phase. And you can kind of see there’s like a part one, a part two, a part three, and then these reflection questions embedded throughout, and then also in aggregate at the end of the book too. And so, in general, as you mentioned, reflection is so critical. We know in the science of learning that we need to take these points in time and moments to really think about our learning, to really make sense of it, and see that meaning that we’re making of it, and that we have or are growing. And so, in our book, we thought, it’s so important, this material, that we want you to think about it further. And, as an educational developer myself, I was thinking about all the people also reading the book, and I was like, “Oh, if we were in a setting, like a workshop or something like that, I could ask these questions. Like what would I ask for application or reflection?” And I’d want to have that. And thinking about the book, and talking with my co-authors about thinking about these reflection questions, it was kind of similar where it’s like “Let’s add these in, so that there are these opportunities to actually engage in that process.” With inclusive teaching in general, there’s so many things to think about, to think about how we do it, what we do. And we gave so much information that it was so important, I think, to process it and to allow time points for stopping to actually start to think about it further. The other thing that we thought about in terms of the reflection questions is that we know that, in our bigger study, we found that there are lots of barriers that instructors described to inclusive teaching. One of them was resources, another was discussions, and whatnot. And so, by embedding these reflection questions, it also has easier access if there is a discussion—or a book club, or reading, or opportunities—to actually take this book information and bring it back and talk about it in a community at their institution, whatever that might look like. And so that’s another reason we did include them too. And I think we later decided to include the aggregate too, but I think that was also helpful. And then also just being able to pick through those which you probably want to emphasize more and have that option to do so. Some might resonate more with some than others. So all of that to say that, that’s why we put it in there and I agree that I think it’s a really good thing in books to include that. Especially these types of books we’re really reflecting and we’re really thinking about intentional teaching, in this case inclusive and equitable teaching.

John: So you started writing this before the pandemic and then while you were writing this there was this global pandemic that popped up and it was a period in which there was also a great deal of social stress. How do you think this might influence the willingness of faculty to focus more on the importance of inclusive teaching?

Tracie: So for me, inclusive teaching has always been important as I’ve mentioned earlier. So the fact that all these things happened were just that they were made more public and people became more aware. And now people are trying to change these things a little bit more than the past. So I will say what it did do was really made me think what a timely book… [LAUGHTER] to actually be at this point in time. I think it was a great opportunity. And I think it’s really useful, and we hear that, that it’s been really helpful for many institutions during this time, especially with this increased focus on it, on thinking about these issues as well. I will say that we wrote most of the book, I think a big majority of it, before it happened and then there’s a whole process that happens in making a book so there’s some time. So we did later try to tie in more of the recent things that had occurred a little bit later. But the beauty of it is, it all kind of fit naturally in there anyway. It’s not like we had to majorly revise the book, we just had to address the issues that were facing our nations. So I think, overall, it’s just a timely book. And this has always been important, and we really do need to talk about it, and this increased that ability for us to do that.

Derek: Yeah and I’ll just add, along with increased appetite for tools to help around these ideas of inclusion and equity, there still weren’t so many of those tools out there. So it worked well that we felt that we could provide one of these tools, that we had been working on it, that it was really ready to go out there as this appetite increased. And, specifically related to the pandemic, so one of the the effects of the pandemic on higher education was it forced a lot of institutions and a lot of courses to move to either hybrid or online pedagogies. And interestingly, this was something that we had been considering all along in terms of some of the chapters we were writing and thinking about welcoming classrooms, but also pedagogical means and ways to work, both in and on the ground and in online settings. So as we saw this starting to happen, we did go through and make sure… Are we talking about things and making sure that it’s understood that many of these are applicable, whether you’re in-person or online? And if you are in an online setting, how can they be used in that way as well?

Mallory: Yeah, I would echo, I think Tracie’s exactly right: structural inequalities in academia and society are not new. And I think for a group of four people who are writing a book on inclusive teaching, they’re already thinking about a lot of these. So what was new was maybe the attention of universities, who maybe were not paying attention, were forced to start paying attention, which I think is a good thing. But one of the other things that I think made me reflect a lot on the value of this book, that came out of the pandemic was, in the shift to online learning—as an instructor who was frantically trying to move all of their classes online with a week’s notice over spring break—was how much I valued being able to learn from my colleagues, and troubleshoot things, and benefit from other people’s expertise. And that’s a lot of what we’re doing in this book by drawing on this survey and not just saying, “Well, here’s what the scholarship tells us inclusive teaching looks like.” But saying, “This is what inclusive teaching looks like by people who are in the classroom doing this work, whether they’re formally trained to do it or not.” I think the value of that became even clearer to me, as I was trying to do the same thing with my colleagues on a daily basis. Learn from other people’s expertise as we were trying to navigate this really challenging situation.

Khadijah: So for me, a lot of what my co-authors have said really resonates. I think that I always thought about inclusive teaching before we had such social challenges that have been more pronounced in the media. I think two things stuck out to me as we wrote this book. One of the parts of the book, we talk about what happens when your classroom is disrupted. And I think it’s interesting, we tend to think about internal things that disrupt, so the students or the instructor, but a part of it was what happens with things outside, so these social conditions disrupt our learning. And so, the fact that the book addressed that when so many things were going on, it kind of was a how-to and it gave practical tools, of models and activities that you can do to navigate that. And I think what’s really resonated is that these things that we talked about in the book transcend transient social things. So like Tracie mentioned, something can happen in the future and this book would still be relevant in the way that we think about inclusive teaching, and what would come further down the pipe. So I think that it helped me reflect on current situations, but also kind of forecasting how having these new tools, from people that we’ve learned around the country, how that would help with future application.

Rebecca: I agree, that’s one of the powerful pieces of the book, is that we know it’s going to keep being useful for folks moving forward. And I know that we’re really grateful that we were able to share that with our faculty in our reading groups this year.

John: It does seem from our discussions with faculty that people are much more open to inclusive teaching than they’ve ever been in the past because while the problems and issues have always been there, they were often hidden on campus because you didn’t see the inequity. But when we were teaching students in their own homes, we saw differences in their access to technology, to their living quarters, and other inequities. It was much harder for people to ignore that. And I think everyone came to appreciate the benefits of community and building a strong community as a result of working through the pandemic. I think everyone realized that having a productive community is an important part of our lives. And the importance of that in a classroom, I think, is much more visible to faculty than it had been for many faculty before.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, the big huge question, “What’s next?”

Derek: Well so one of the things that I’ll say, I’ll keep it short and simple. What’s next? Around the book, it’s spreading the word. It’s spreading the word of why inclusive teaching matters, why equitable teaching matters, and what tools are out there. Whether it’s our book or whether it’s some other tool, some other way to get yourself into that realm, and get some understanding and work with your colleagues and learn from the experts. However that happens, that’s great. And for me personally, it’s doing the exact same thing: constantly learning, knowing that I have room to grow, knowing that I can improve in my teaching personally and all of that, and looking externally and reflecting internally for ways to do that.

Mallory: I think, “What’s next?” is such a great question to end on. Because one of the things we focus on in the book is that inclusive teaching is an iterative process. You never reach the end of it, you never get the perfectly inclusive course. And so, “What’s next?” is always revisiting what you’re doing and trying to, both in your own courses, revise and work towards fixing the things you didn’t get right the last time and at the institutional level, trying to build more capacity for inclusive teaching and buy-in. And I think the big “What’s next?” question is: What happens as we move away from the immediacy of the pandemic? What happens when racial injustice is not the main topic of the news? Do we still have the support for inclusive teaching efforts, or does that fade into the background? So I think the “What’s next?” is making sure that the momentum that has been gained is not lost.

Tracie: Yeah, and I would agree with all of my co-authors so far. I think the institutionalization of inclusive teaching would be so wonderful as a next step. So whether it’s, like, not treating it as a fad, [LAUGHTER] but creating it as part of our cultures in our institutions. So I know, like at my institution, we’re working hard towards that in a variety of ways. For me also personally, I do a lot of work around this, and thinking about the research and whatnot. So one of my steps right now that I’m taking is really thinking about the tools that we can really think about and capture practices around inclusive teaching to have that feedback. So we have all these great strategies, but let’s talk about more tools to really get feedback on our actual teaching practices. So I am doing some research around that right now, and I do work with students, student partners, to help us really think about this thing called “inclusion” and this equity as well. And so that’s where I sit in this space. So I’m going to continue to think about tools like Who’s in Class? and then these new tools, and go from there as well.

Khadijah: So, I echo a lot of what Tracie, Derek, and Mallory said. I think for me, of personal interest, when we do a lot of the inclusive classroom teaching, it makes me think about my laboratory. It makes me think about my teaching laboratory and my research laboratories. And I think teaching and mentoring go hand-in-hand in this space. Particularly when we think about DEI and STEM. And so for me, I’m interested in: What does inclusive mentoring look like in these spaces? And what are some of those principles and practices that are translatable from what we think about in the classroom, but then also what may be distinct in the laboratory and mentoring?

John: Well we very much appreciate you joining us, it feels like we’ve been in a dialogue with you all through our semester so far through the reading group. And we very much enjoyed your book, and I hope many other people will join in reading through it and working with it. Thank you.

Tracie: Thank you.

Mallory: Yeah, thanks.

Derek: Thank you so much.

Rebecca: We look forward to seeing all your new work.

Khadijah: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer. Editing assistance provided by Anna Croyle.

[MUSIC]

205. Tutoring

Equity gaps in educational outcomes play a major role in perpetuating economic inequality. In this episode, Philip Oreopoulis  joins us to discuss his research examining how tutoring and computer-aided instruction can be used to reduce disparities in educational outcomes. Philip is a Distinguished Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, the Education co-chair of MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, and an award-winning researcher who has conducted a wide variety of studies relating to education and educational policy.

Shownotes

Transcript

John: Equity gaps in educational outcomes play a major role in perpetuating economic inequality. In this episode, we discuss research examining how tutoring and computer-aided instruction can be used to reduce disparities in educational outcomes.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

Rebecca: …and features guests doing important research and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners.

[MUSIC]

John: Our guest today is Philip Oreopoulis. Philip is a Distinguished Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, the Education co-chair of MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, and an award-winning researcher who has conducted a wide variety of studies relating to education and educational policy. Welcome, Philip.

Philip: Thanks so much for having me.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are:…Philip, are you drinking tea?

Philip: My tea is coffee. I love coffee. I once looked for a reason not to drink coffee, I couldn’t find one. I love my black coffee.

Rebecca: A true researcher at heart. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I am drinking a bing cherry black tea, a custom Tea Republic tea made for Harry & David.

Rebecca: And I have Irish breakfast tea. I really need to get some new tea [LAUGHTER]. I’m going to a tea store this weekend, so I’m looking forward to getting some new options.

John: And we have lots of tea in the office, some of which may not be as fresh as it was a year and a half ago. But this one still is good. It was purchased right before the shutdown.

Philip: You guys are inspiring me. I think I’m gonna have some tea sometime today.

Rebecca: All right, good, good.

John: In a November 2020 Scientific American article, you describe a meta analysis that you worked on with some colleagues that found that tutoring results in significant improvements in student learning. Could you describe this meta analysis a bit and what you found?

Philip: To backtrack a little bit, how it got started: my colleagues at J-PAL, Vincent Quan, Andre Nickow, and I, had heard about the potential of tutoring to be an effective form for increasing test score learning performance. For example, there’s Benjamin Bloom’s seminal article in the 80s, where he had two very small studies done by his students that both found off the charts improvement from offering tutoring in randomized control trials. In fact, that’s why he called it the ‘“2 sigma problem” that he found estimated impact from these two small studies were raising learning performances by enough to potentially solve most of our problems that we would be having in education policy. There were a number of recent studies as well, a randomized control trial coming out from the University of Chicago’s Ed lab, also finding very promising results from an RCT looking at providing in-class tutoring to grade nine students. And so we wanted to explore whether there was some consistency in these results, so we decided to try to take a more systematic look, and we gathered up all the RCTs, randomized control trials, in the last 40 years for about 96 studies, and we took a look and we found that consensus was quite remarkable. About 80% of those studies found significant effects larger than .2 of a standard deviation, and the average effect size was .38 of a standard deviation, which is like the equivalent of almost an entire extra year of school, from receiving these programs. And not only were the impacts really quite meaningful, as about as large as you get from education interventions, but they were consistent across the board. I think that this is about as much consistency as you’re ever going to get in an education policy intervention. So we were quite excited about that. We found that the effects were pretty consistent no matter which type of program that you looked at. They were larger for things like in-school delivery, three days a week, one-to-one delivery, full time tutors, but even in cases where that wasn’t the case, usually there were still significant effects.

Rebecca: Can you talk about what age the students were, what grades they were in?

Philip: It was for K-12.

John: I think it’s probably safe to assume, though, that the same effect would hold in the college environment as well. Those are some pretty dramatic effects.

Philip: Of course, to some extent, maybe it’s not that surprising. Giving instruction one-to-one leads to higher learning gains, and the biggest challenge, of course, is cost. We can’t all have our own teacher when we go to school. And so the biggest challenge, which gets back to Bloom’s point calling this the 2 sigma problem, is I think we have a powerful intervention to help education, it’s just that it costs too much to implement it on a larger scale. So the fundamental problem is to figure out a way to scale this in a way that can complement the classroom instruction.

John: And so that’s one of the things I think you’re looking at now, how this can be scaled up in a more cost effective manner. Could you tell us a little bit about your current research in terms of computer-assisted learning?

Philip: Sure. So computer-assisted learning or computer-assisted instruction is a type of educational software designed to help students progress through topics at their own pace. It has a lot of similar features as what you might receive when you’re receiving tutoring. So a typical example might be Khan Academy, MATHia, there’s lots of other types of software designed to help with different topics, math and reading, but they all have these sort of common features that allow students to progress through topics at their own pace. You receive immediate feedback from trying to work through your own problems and a chance to understand where you went wrong. If you do make a mistake, there’s data that’s generated from going through it that someone like a teacher might be able to follow and respond to. And so computer-assisted learning can, in some ways, simulate the tutoring experience, but of course, at a much lower cost. The challenge is you don’t have a real person guiding you through it. So even though a platform like Khan Academy is easily accessible, your willingness or motivation to go through it on your own is probably not as great as if you had a real person guiding you through the same material. So there has been some experimental evidence on computer-assisted learning, not as much as theories on tutoring, but of the 15 or 20 randomized control trials that have been done in this area, they have also been showing quite promising results. In cases where computer-assisted learning is provided, especially during a school setting, those receiving it also seemed to be performing at significantly higher rates than those in the comparison group. So there does seem to be some promise at using computer-assisted learning to generate the gains that we see from tutoring. But the way to introduce it, the instructions that teachers need to learn how to use it effectively, are not yet maybe as developed as we’d like them to be. So getting to, I guess jump into what I’m working on, I think that there’s a lot of potential for leveraging existing resources to combine with computer-assisted learning in a way that might come close to the tutoring experience. And so what I’m thinking of is in the classroom, that the kind of facilitated practice that might go on, say, in a math subject might be much better through a tool like Khan Academy than paper and pencil that we often give students. And so the question I’m investigating is around reshuffling the classroom in a way where the teacher is trained how to use computer-assisted learning more effectively in the classroom to generate that type of experience. So in the context of the program that I’m looking at now, which tries to integrate Khan Academy more into math classes, the teacher is still instructing and presenting topics, but now emphasizing the students following an individualized roadmap that allows the students to progress at their own pace, rather than having to keep up even if they’re missing on topics and not understanding. So the program which we’re calling “Coaching with Khan Academy,” or CWK, has students receive a roadmap of incremental topics and videos to follow at the start of school that roughly proceed in the same order that the teacher is going through. Now, the teacher has the students to try to work on this roadmap for at least an hour, an hour and a half a week, and tries to facilitate that time during the class and encourage more done at home, and the students then have the ability to hopefully get into a routine of watching a video and taking the exercises, and if they don’t score high enough on the exercises they’re asked to try to understand why they made the mistake using the hints and tips and guidance that Khan provides or gets help from the teacher, and then repeat it so that they don’t move on to the next topic until they’ve mastered that. So the students are not proceeding all in the same pace, but it is just a much better way to learn math such that the students don’t go on to the next topic until they’ve established a strong enough foundation on the first one.

John: During the global pandemic, most high schools moved to emergency remote instruction for an extended period, and there’s quite a bit of evidence that that led to a decline in overall learning, but also some growing achievement gaps which are tied to household wealth and the wealth of the school districts in which the students reside. What types of policies could be implemented at the K-12 level so that students are more equally prepared for entry into college

Philip: On COVID, we’ve all been exposed to online learning now, and most research suggests that it’s not a great substitute for in-person but there are certain benefits from being able to speak with a real person over a computer in regards to tutoring. So the biggest one is convenience, both for the tutor and the tutee. It’s nice to be able to jump in on a call and spend just 30 minutes on that or an hour, and not have to drive to the person’s location or do this after school. The opportunity to facilitate more tutoring, I think, is increased by having this online access. So I think there’s a lot of interesting promises from that. This one particularly interesting study that was done during COVID last summer, where a group of Italian faculty organized a volunteer tutoring experiment where they got the Deans of their respective universities to invite university students to volunteer their time, three to six hours a week to reach out and connect with students who have been struggling in the high schools and lower grades. And on the flip side, they got the school districts of several locations in Italy to ask teachers to identify students that they thought could benefit from having this one-on-one instruction. And then the response was great in both ways, there were a lot of people willing to volunteer their time for this effort, and there was also a lot of perceived need for students that needed this. And so from this large set-up, they randomized who they were able to give this offer of assistance to. And it was done all online, sometimes over the phone, but more often through Zoom, or Skype, or whatever was most convenient for the match to take place. The tutors met with tutees, for three hours a week, over six weeks. The topics were either math, Italian, or English, and then at the end, the researchers collected the survey and found similar gains to what we were finding in the online overall. Not only that, but they also collected data on mental health and found improvements in feelings of connection, more positive outlook on life. And what’s also interesting as they seem to show improvements and positive outcomes for the tutors themselves, as well. So it stands the potential for a win-win, and this was all done online. So it’s like the only online study I know, but it seems to show the potential that it might be done there. One other example I should mention is Khan Academy has also initiated another organization that facilitates free volunteer online tutoring. It’s called ‘schoolhouse.world’ and it’s been interesting to watch that trying to get up and running. Their system allows anyone in the world to volunteer their time as a tutor, and then they try to connect anyone in the world wanting to receive that tutoring. And you get some sense of some of the challenges from doing that. How do you screen for quality? And also, how do you screen for safety? So they’ve had to go away from a one to one model to more of a group model. They’ve had to have systems in place to check the quality of the tutoring, what’s being discussed. They’ve had to switch to allowing only high school students to receive the tutoring and a few other challenges. And so there’s challenges but also a lot of potential in this that wasn’t available from always having to meet your tutor in school or after school or face-to-face. So the potential scalability is enormous, and that’s where the intriguing possibilities are with that tool.

Rebecca: So if we’re looking to reduce achievement gaps, we’ve talked a little bit about COVID and the mix of instruction that students might’ve had during COVID, the quality of instruction, access to technology, to even have interactions with teachers in some cases, and historically even, differences in ability when students arrive in higher ed. What are some of the things that the higher ed community might be thinking about in terms of this research? Should we be advocating for certain kinds of policies or programs in K-12? Should we be trying to institute some of these things in higher ed? What are your thoughts on that?

Philip: So just in terms of advocacy and thinking about facilitating more equality, there’s no question that tutoring has, in general, been an unequal program. There’s the whole private sector of tutoring where a lot of households for more affluent families seem to receive it than those from less affluent households. And so one thing we can do as policy-makers is to try to facilitate more tutoring to happen in schools, especially at schools for more disadvantaged backgrounds. We can also focus on providing tutoring to those who need it most. I think that there is a growing awareness of the potential for tutoring to make a real difference in helping address the learning loss that may have occurred with the pandemic and just helping address education inequalities in general. And so a lot of resources have started going towards trying to increase the amount of tutoring happening in schools. I think that the more we understand how to implement it successfully, the more guidance that we can provide the K-12 sector in trying to introduce that. I think that there is a lot of optimism now around its potential. I think tutoring is one of the most effective programs that we can offer to make a meaningful difference at scale, such that we can get more students arriving into post-secondary ready to handle it and succeed well there. So that’s on that end. I think that there’s no reason why we also can’t consider tutoring at the post-secondary level as well, and the potential benefits that might come from that. Even if we just look at first-year calculus, or other subjects in math, computer-assisted learning is well developed even at that level, the need for tutoring at that level is there as well. And so it really does go from that importance of establishing a foundation that one might benefit from tutoring at earlier ages. But even at the post-secondary level, regardless of what level the student is, we can all benefit from one-on-one instruction compared to being in a calculus class of 500, right? I think there has been less research that’s been done in that area, but the evidence certainly points to the direction that tutoring at the post-secondary level would be also effective and important to consider.

John: And you mentioned that Italian experiment where college students were providing tutoring, and you mentioned that that was a very positive experience for the college students as well. That might be an interesting model where college students could improve their own skills and develop a bit more automaticity and more practice in basic concepts, while helping bring students up to a higher level in secondary schools. That’s a program that I think offers a lot of potential.

Philip: So I would agree, absolutely, the expression is you don’t really understand something until you teach it. I think that there’s something to be said for that. I think that there’s also a lot of skills and experience that is gained from trying to help others, from trying to connect with perhaps younger individuals that have not had the same background as you. I think that the experience is also attractive to employers looking at who to hire. I think there’s huge gains from all the things that you might volunteer or use your time for in college, spending some time to volunteer to do something like tutoring could be a very rewarding thing as well. So I’m also excited about that model. I think that there are ways to try to facilitate that kind of model at scale and more research needs to be done to explore how to do that.

Rebecca: One of the things that I heard you mentioned early on in the conversation is the idea that, historically, folks who had access to tutoring are more affluent. So the students who most need the tutoring are the ones that aren’t always getting it, because they can’t afford it. So I love the idea of having it in schools or it’s a part of our programs. But also I think sometimes tutoring has a negative connotation to it. It’s like a deficit model. Especially I’ve seen this in higher ed, students don’t want to go to a tutor because it makes them feel like they’re dumb or something.

Philip: My first reaction to that is that tutoring can be beneficial at any level. For example, in the Khoaching with Khan project that I’m looking at, the potential is to help all students in the class regardless of their level, because every student can be given their own individual roadmap. And that not only includes those that are behind grade level that benefit from establishing a stronger foundation in that earlier material so that they can catch up, it also includes those at a higher level that don’t have to be held back or wait for the instructor to cover new material can use a platform like Khan Academy or a tutor to work on more challenging material that interest them. And so how to remove that stigma that exists in general, I agree the usual perception is when someone asks, “Do you need a tutor?” it’s because you’re struggling. It doesn’t need to be that way, but at the same time, I think the more we become aware of the benefits from the tutoring, the more we realize that it’s a great resource to take advantage of. Getting back at the college level, I don’t know about your own experiences, but it always amazes me how few students take advantage of all the free tutoring that’s being offered by the universities through, like, office hours. The opportunity for receiving one-on-one discussion is often there, and yet so few students seem to take advantage of it, perhaps because of that stigma or perhaps they’re too busy. Some of us, when we went through college, were pleasantly surprised by how much you can get with office hours of graduate students and extra tutoring and how much you can learn from that process.

John: As in a lot of classes, students are treated as if one-size-fits-all education and students come in, especially in subjects such as math where there is a very rigid structure, if you don’t have a solid foundation and concepts, learning new topics is not going to be very productive, because you don’t have that foundation to connect to. And I see that in my own classes, and it’s a bit of a challenge to try to do that. Because of issues of scale I often teach large classes, I try to rely on peer instruction as much as possible with small group activities. Could small group peer interactions in working through problems and problem sets achieve something similar to the one on one attention?

Philip: In the literature, it’s called peer-to-peer, we did not look at peer-to-peer in our meta analysis on tutoring, but there is some literature and there’s some effort to consider that. It’s a little bit of a different model, because you’re relying on slightly older students or similar students to help assist other students. I think more research needs to be done on how to make that happen effectively. On one hand, the potential is there to make this a scalable, effective program that doesn’t cost very much. On the other hand, monitoring quality and the potential to train to be a tutor and to do a good job with it may not be there as much as with the regular type of tutoring program.

John: In particular, I was thinking of activities in class where students work on problems in groups, and they try to argue out solutions. They work together and they can explain to each other things they don’t understand, but the key aspect of that is they get feedback on whether they’re correct or not, some constructive feedback on where they went astray. But I was just thinking that those types of small group interactions could provide some of the benefits without that stigma of needing to go to tutoring and perhaps at a higher scale than tutoring might work.

Philip: The advice that I often give my students is to study until you feel you can explain it to someone else. And so there’s a similar, perhaps, mechanism at play when we’re thinking about that. When you try to write down a concept or explain it, even to yourself, out loud or to someone else, you quickly realize what you understand and what you don’t. There does seem to be a lot of potential there.

Rebecca: Sounds like one of the keys to reducing stigma around all of this is making the coaching or this tutoring model just something that’s normalized. Maybe it’s normalized in class, it’s normalized through the school day, and then people might be more apt to take advantage of it because they have access to it. But also, it becomes a standard way of being, that’s what other people around them are also doing.

Philip: Absolutely! I think if we can reframe tutoring as just individualized instruction or personalized instruction, then we can all understand the potential benefits of receiving more personal help than in a classroom setting, and that goes for pretty much anyone.

Rebecca: It really also matches up well with a lot of universal design for learning principles of flexibility as well, and allowing students to go at their own pace and finding ways of teaching and learning that match well for students and where they’re at.

Philip: And of course, the issue is scale. Getting children to learn in a classroom of 25 to 30 students, when these students vary enormously in academic levels, is just really difficult. And trying to figure out a way to provide that individual attention is the challenge that all teachers face and have been facing for many, many years. And if we can find a way to scale adding on or providing more and more individualized attention, it has the potential, I think, to make a real difference in education. Of all the potential policies that we can be looking at, I do think that, at the school level, leaning towards more individualized instruction is where we should be looking at, for a solution.

Rebecca: It’s so interesting to me that we’re having this conversation early on in our semester, because after teaching online for a year, which I hadn’t done previously, I’ve really worked to make my classes more flexible and actually offer some of those kinds of models that you’re describing where students are going more at their own pace, and that they can get some individualized instruction when they need it and that they need to do this mastery learning so that they build on things over time. It looks to me like maybe I need to look more into tutoring and coaching models that have worked really well to see if I can’t implement some of that more during class time.

Philip: There may be different ways to do it. Some may be more effective than others, but I do think, getting back at what John was saying, it’s harder to provide that individual support or help to students arriving in college without that foundation. I have done some other work at the college level, trying to facilitate more personal attention to students arriving, trying to help them out and encourage them to get into better habits, and it has proved quite difficult to change behavior, and so I have found myself reacting to that by focusing more on earlier grades to see if there might be more promise on trying to foster better study habits, better learning habits, earlier on with the hope that students arrive in college more prepared.

John: I think that’s one of the things a lot of behavioral economic studies have found. Interventions that result in long-term changes of behavior are challenging in general.

Philip: Absolutely.

John: And I think you’ve done some research on that.

Philip: Absolutely. So if we have to change one-time actions, like helping students through applying for college, applying for financial aid, those types of interventions are much more promising at affecting one-time goals than to change habits or routines that involve much more continuous behavior. So helping someone study more effectively, spend more time studying, these are much harder problems to solve. And maybe low-cost nudges that we’ve been looking at in the literature may not be as effective. I think that does tie back into how my perspective has changed over time. It’s hard to have significant influence without personal connection. It’s a lot more expensive, but there’s only so far you can go with sending an email or a text message or a one-time meeting in trying to change someone’s learning trajectory or life trajectory. And the more you sort of look at education policies that have been successful, the more you notice that they often come with this personal connection that’s been important for making that meaningful change.

Rebecca: It seems like we should all be really advocating then for these much more early interventions. It’s much more cost effective if we get those habits in place really early [LAUGHTER].

Philip: I will say there’s surprisingly not enough research on the long-term effects of tutoring. I’ve seen one study that has found that the benefits of receiving that tutoring continued one year past the program ended; the effects faded, but not by that much, and that’s the only study I’m aware of that actually does a long-term study. So on the question of whether we can have these life-changing impacts from targeting earlier ages, certainly, there’s a literature for the very young… like, almost helping at the household, but at the school, I think that more work could be done.

John: And that could be a really productive research area. Before we started recording, we were talking a little bit about, with the pandemic, creating our own videos. Could you talk a little bit about how you try to implement what you’ve learned in your own classes at the college level?

Philip: Yeah, I think that using the situation last year to put my lectures online has freed up space in the actual lectures to be more interactive. So I think it was a benefit both ways. The videos of the lectures themselves became more streamlined, I got a chance to break them up into smaller parts, sort of like Khan Academy videos, where instead of one video that’s two hours long, that goes all over the place, and you’re staring at me and the Blackboard, I created five- to ten-minute videos of vignettes that I could focus on with slides and have a series of these videos that students could watch at their own pace. I could edit them and make sure that the video is as succinct as possible and gets across what I really want to say. So that was good on the video side, and then on the actual lecture side, we spent that time going through problem sets and answering questions and it was much more interactive, closer to the spirit of more personalized instruction. So there was more opportunity for questions, more opportunities for the students to get more involved, and I think it did lead to more satisfaction of that approach. Obviously, the big question is, ‘Do they really watch the videos when they’re asked to do it on their own?’ I think there are ways to try to incentivize that, but just like any class, the students really perk up when they’re working on a problem that was, say, a previous exam question.

John: I’ve used a very similar approach. I’ve used videos for like 20 some years in my classes, but one thing I started doing last year is I embedded questions in the middle of the videos, and that’s a pretty effective incentive structure. It does get them all watching the videos, and at least thinking about it and trying to make some connections while they do it, and that’s worked pretty well.

Philip: Not only that, but you can make them mandatory for class participation. So you stick those questions in and they have to watch the video to find the questions when they pop up, there’s software that can do that. And then you can make it as a way to encourage them to have to watch the video.

John: Do you think that more use of computer-aided instruction is going to be helpful in allowing more students to be successful?

Philip: I’m very optimistic on this potential of leveraging computers with teachers and parents working together on trying to facilitate high-dosage practice. We’ve been talking mostly in math, but it could also be language as well, and maybe other topics. But I think this really is a good way to learn, as long as the practice time is long enough, and the student’s not stuck. I think that it takes a while to get into the habit, getting used to the software, getting used to the routine, both for the teacher providing this and for the student doing it, and so that, for me, right now, is the biggest challenge. I am optimistic that if we can facilitate a way to help teachers and students get to that higher-dose practice using computers, then very good things will happen. I think that the evidence is highly suggestive that the high dosage is a worthwhile thing to get done. I’m hoping that we can generate evidence that that’s the case, but we are finding that there are challenges because there’s a learning curve, it is changing the way that the classroom is done and changing the way the student usually learns, but I’m optimistic that if we can get past that, the students and the teachers will come to like this approach, and that we can do more of it at scale.

John: And I think a lot of people began experimenting with some sort of a flipped approach where they created videos and then use the classroom for more interactive activities, ast least at the college level, I don’t think that’s happened quite as much at the secondary school level. But I think that has helped provide at least some professional development for faculty. But it is an adjustment that students are not adjusting to perhaps as easily as I would like, I know I always have trouble getting across to students that there is some benefit of working through problems in class and watching videos and learning some of the basic concepts outside of class. Students would rather be lectured to, there was that big study that was done at Harvard not too long ago, where students were asked about active learning classes versus lecture classes, and the research certainly showed that active learning in the classroom led to significant learning gains, but students perceived a higher learning gain from lecture classes, and that’s where I think that issue of students’ adjustment is a challenge, and until we get to see a large amount of this occurring, it’s going to be a while convincing students of this, because it’s really easy to sit there in a lecture and nod and smile and have it all make sense and it seems to fit together very logically, but then when you try to apply it, there’s a bit of a problem, and then the questions are somehow unfair. But when students are faced with problems and interactive work in class, they’re confronted by not knowing things as well as perhaps they thought they did, and it’s not as pleasant of an experience. And I think that’s the source of that metacognition, that students perceive that lectures are more effective, because it’s easy to sit there and listen in, and it all seems reasonable. But the problem is when they try to work through problems and realize they don’t quite have those connections fully there yet.

Philip: The lecture seems to make so much sense until you sit down when you get home and try to go over it again, but I do think there’s the potential for this middle ground that even in the experiment we’re looking at, we’re not entirely flipping the class, in fact, we want to work with the teacher to understand what their own preferences are, while still trying to hit this high dosage of practice, which may occur in class, but also could occur at home as well. And I think that there is something to be said by having a lecture of a new topic being done in class, in person, with the real person. It gets back to that importance of personal connection that the computer is not able to provide. And so maybe there is a sweet spot around providing real instruction, real empathy, but also enough time to be working through these problems at your own pace. My vision for the Khan project is that students say, in grade four, getting 90 minutes of math a day, maybe half an hour of that would be the teacher’s own instruction of a new topic, but then a lot of the other time would be students working on their own devices, while the teacher takes the time… instead of just sitting up at their desk… walks around and spends a lot of time looking over the student’s shoulder, using the data that they’re seeing to understand who’s struggling and where, and spends a lot of time working individually while the student is using the computer. So there’s still that interaction going on and taking advantage of the personalization. I think they too can go really well together.

Rebecca: That’s definitely something I’ve been experimenting with. I went all the way flipped before, and right now I think I’m right in the middle. There’s some flipped, there’s some demos that are live so that people can interact and ask questions, and then there’s lots of practice with individualized attention. And it does take a little time to get everyone on board, to get everyone trained to do things in a new way. So in a 15-week semester, it might take two full weeks to develop new habits and workflows for everyone, but really after we get over that two- week hurdle at the beginning of the semester, my classes tend to settle into a routine that seems really productive and that students have been pretty positive about.

Philip: A key feature of the coaching with Khan program, is that every teacher gets their own coach that we spell with a “kh,” and our coaches meet with the teacher prior to school to go over our suggested recipe to follow, but then they don’t just leave it at that, they keep working with the teachers to check in and try to troubleshoot or brainstorm or reassure and remind the teacher until things are going smoothly. But it can take longer than two weeks to figure out how things are going, and then on the student side, it can take a while for them to adapt and understand that there’s some independence on their own for wanting to do it. The hope is that the students start to gain confidence when they see their own progress, when they see that maybe they didn’t consider themselves a strong math student, but if you start them at the right spot on this roadmap, and then they proceed incrementally, and they can see that they are advancing, then they start to understand the potential benefits and internalize the desire to keep going on their own.

Rebecca: Yeah, that autonomy and that empowerment, I think, is really key to the whole puzzle. And I think something that probably tutoring historically helps students achieve is that they can do this. They might have a little extra guidance initially, but then they achieve it and can do it, and that’s really empowering.

John: That’s our hope

Rebecca: We always wrap up by asking: “What’s next?”

Philip: What’s next? I think I made some notes on that. [LAUGHTER] So I think the issue around tutoring and individualized learning is all about, now, scale. I don’t think we need another study to demonstrate that one-on-one instruction, or one-on-two is an effective additional tool for learning, that more should be done if it were possible. A lot of resources are now going into trying to provide individualized instruction. I think a lot of policymakers and governments are looking to tutoring as a way to address some of the learning loss that may have gone on during the pandemic, and I think, in that space, there’s some optimism by researchers and policymakers to try to understand what types of scale up are better than others in a way that we can make a meaningful difference at the aggregate level.

Rebecca: Well, thanks so much. I’m really excited to hear more as your research develops and more information becomes available!

Philip: It was a pleasure to get a chance to chat with you guys. It’s a topic I’ve been spending a lot of time on and losing a bit of sleep on trying to get things to work. The experiment that we have going on, this is going on in Texas, and one of the challenges of doing a field experiment is that so many things go wrong while you’re trying to deal with real people, real students, and provide evidence that this is a good idea. And it’s always a bit frustrating to face these challenges, like just account issues, students have trouble getting on to Khan Academy and the teachers getting frustrated, and it would be a shame to have those issues that can be worked out actually create this wedge from the program going smoothly and making the difference between having these great impacts or not. So it is stressful, but I think it’s worth it to try to keep at it, and I hope to be able to do so. With funding and policy support we’ll just keep trying. I think there’s a lot of interest in it, I think that it hasn’t been difficult to motivate these ideas and wanting to do more on it. So thanks a lot for giving me the chance to share these thoughts.

John: Your work is incredibly important. And so much income inequality is associated with differences in educational attainment, that understanding these achievement gaps and what we can do to narrow them can have a really dramatic impact on society.

Philip: Fingers crossed!

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

John: Editing assistance provided by Anna Croyle.

[MUSIC]

202. Returning to the classroom

As we move into the fall semester, most institutions had planned on return to primarily face-to-face classroom instruction. However, the growth of the delta variant has cast some doubt on that and it’s likely that we’re going to be seeing some disruptions as infections spread on our campuses. In this episode, we discuss some things that faculty may want to keep in mind as we move into the fall semester.

Shownotes

  • Sathy, V., & Hogan, K. A. (2020). “Structured for Inclusion.Tea for Teaching podcast. September 16.
  • Sathy, V., & Hogan, K. A. (2019). Want to reach all of your students? Here’s how to make your teaching more inclusive. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  • Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2017). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453-468.
  • Hogan, K.A. and Sathy, V. (forthcoming, 2022). Embracing Diversity: A Guide to Teaching Inclusively. WVU Press.
  • Hogan, Kelly A, and Sathy, Viji (2020). “Optimizing Student Learning and Inclusion in Quantitative Courses.” in Rodgers, Joseph Lee, ed. (2020). Teaching Statistics and Quantitative Methods in the 21st Century. Routledge.
  • Panter, A.T.,; Sathy, Viji; and Hogan, Kelly A (2020). “8 Ways to Be More Inclusive in Your Zoom Teaching.” Chronicle of Higher Education. April 7.

Transcript

John: As we move into the fall semester, most institutions had planned on a return to primarily face-to-face classroom instruction. However, the growth of the Delta variant has cast some doubt on that and it’s likely that we’re going to be seeing some disruptions as infections spread on our campuses. We may have students going into quarantine, we may have temporary closures, and faculty themselves may end up in quarantine because of their own or family exposure to COVID. So we thought it would be helpful if we talked a little bit about some things that faculty may want to keep in mind as we move into the fall semester.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer.

Rebecca: Together, we run the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at the State University of New York at Oswego.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca: One of the things that I think many faculty were looking forward to over the summer was maybe a fall that looked a lot more like the ways that they had teached previously, unmasked, perhaps because of vaccination mandates. And there’s still a lot of uncertainty on many campuses around that and vaccination rates of students. So many faculty are finding themselves in situations where they’re going to be masked and their students are masked as well. Although we had some faculty certainly teach that way in the spring, it’s new to many faculty across the country. And so we thought today, we could do some tips about things to think about in the classroom or other face-to-face situations where masks are involved. Our teas today are…John, what are you drinking?

John: Ginger peach green tea. And Rebecca?

Rebecca: I have a decaf Irish breakfast today. And why is it decaf? Because I ran out of the caffeinated tea. [LAUGHTER]

John: I know in office where there is a lot of tea, although I did throw some of the older tea out that had been sitting there for a while. Because our campus has moved at least mostly back to face-to-face instruction. We just had an academic affairs retreat with quite a few faculty present in person, but also quite a few faculty present remotely. And I suspect we’ll be seeing many such events as we move through the fall semester. So you mentioned the issue of masks. And for those of us who set out last year because of health conditions or other concerns. We were not used to teaching with mass. So maybe we could talk a little bit about something that faculty who are teaching with masks for the first time should take into account.

Rebecca: I know that John and I have recently done some campus events. And the first thing I noticed being masked all day was that I couldn’t breathe. I ran out of air, you might get more winded than you’re used to, which might slow you down. But you want to think about how to pace yourself and maybe even making sure you have water. And then it’s also awkward to take your mask off and get a drink of water. So you may want to think about that maybe even practice ahead of time so that you don’t feel like an idiot, trying to figure out how to get a drink.

John: I had to give a really short presentation to our new faculty in person. And I very quickly ran out of breath because I was in a room where it was a very big room and there were no microphones, which was probably not ideal. Which brings us to one of the first things we’d recommend, which is that in the classroom, you should use a microphone. That’s always a good idea because there may be distractions and having clear audio would always be helpful, but it’s especially important if your voice is going to be muffled behind a mask.

Rebecca: And we may think typically of this being something only for a big lecture hall. But I would argue that even in smaller classrooms, it could be incredibly helpful. Another thing to consider too is students in the class not only need to be able to hear you but each other. So if there’s not a microphone to pass around to students, for example, then you want to make sure that you’re repeating questions or comments that students are making so that everyone has the benefit of conversation. This can also be true if you happen to have students who are Zooming in because they’re in quarantine or something else to make sure that they can hear what’s going on in the class as well.

John: Because it’s going to be harder for everyone to hear each other you should be prepared to speak a little more slowly than you might normally to make it easier for students. And also you may want to minimize the amount of time you spend talking in class. If you have not already cut back on lecturing, this would probably be a great time to replace a lecture-based class with the use of more active learning activities where there’s more small local discussions taking place, rather than one person having a voice at trying to fill the whole classroom.

Rebecca: I think those more intimate settings can be helpful to deal with volume and things, you may need more space between groups because they may actually be louder than you’re accustomed to, because of the masks and people needing to try to speak up. So you might want to plan with that and be flexible and ready to adjust. And making sure you’re supplementing with videos and other things for clarifications. You’re noticing a lot of issues that are arising, you know, just-in-time teaching techniques, maybe those need to be a little bit of video follow up too, just to make sure that everyone got that information. You may also want to think about using slides or other digital materials to supplement what’s happening in the classroom to reinforce terms, concepts, ideas, etc., just to make sure that everyone can get that information, especially if anyone’s having trouble hearing.

John: And in general, the use of videos is something that many of us have been recommending anyway, because students can listen to them at their own pace. When you record them, you’re recording them typically at a computer without a mask on, so your voice will be much clearer. And it will make it much easier for students to understand what you’re trying to say. And they can listen to it at their own pace and as often as they need to. So there’s a lot of good reasons to do that, in general. And once you’ve created them, many of them can be used multiple times in multiple years. So if you haven’t done it, that can be helpful.

Rebecca: What we hope that you’re hearing is this idea of multimodal ways of engagement. We mentioned having slides or text-based materials, video materials and activities that might all address some of the same concepts and ideas so that there’s many ways that students can dip in and engage with the material and the content of the class.

John: And when you have students engage in activities in the classroom, don’t just give them instructions early, provide the instructions in writing with a shared document, perhaps a Google Drive document, or put them up on a slide on the screen, if that works better in your environment. But because students may have trouble understanding instructions because of the mask and your muffled voice, giving them other ways to see the instructions and refer back to them is going to reduce uncertainty. And it tends to be a very effective tool in any case, as Viji Sathi and Kelly Hogan have noted, giving students more structure tends to be really effective in reducing achievement gaps for students as well.

Rebecca: This is a really great time to mention the use of polling, as well, to collect information from students. Usually when we’re doing polls, you might present something both in text and orally, so there’s a couple of different ways to get that information. But one of the things you could poll on is how well students are able to hear and the general happenings in the class and what people need. So I would highly encourage doing some polling around those kinds of needs early on in the semester, because we’re all learning and adapting and trying to figure it out together. And the more you can collaboratively do that with students to meet the needs that they’re identifying, the better.

John: With polling, you’ve got a variety of questions you can use. But you can also use things like Jamboard and other whiteboard activities, or even Google Forms where students are submitting things in text rather than verbally. The more communications that take place in a nonverbal format, the more clear that communications will tend to be while we still have mass requirements in effect.

Rebecca: So you’ll notice these digital things that you started adopting, maybe when you were teaching online, can still have a really important place in a physical classroom, we can have those small group conversations and really enjoy the presence of other humans, but also supplement with some of this technology that can help fill in some gaps that we might still have. One of those gaps that we might have is the expressions we’re used to seeing. Even if you were using Zoom, for example, you got to see at least some expressions from students who might have had cameras on, but things can be lost in translation behind a mask, facial expressions might be hidden. So you may need to feel like you’re overexplaining. If you have a lot of emotion embedded in what you’re saying, you might need to actually say what that emotion is: “I’m really excited about this,” or, “I’m really happy to see this.” Rather than just expecting students to hear that change and inflection in your voice because it may be a lot harder to detect than it would be otherwise. One of the things that we mentioned at the top of this episode is really thinking about the many different circumstances that can arise and being prepared this semester. That means backup plans and probably backup plans for your backup plans. We can’t be too prepared. So some things that I know that I faced as a faculty member is, I have a daughter who’s four who’s been quarantined three times from daycare because of exposure to COVID-19. So you may be exposed, your family members might be exposed, so you may not be able to be in person. But the same thing can be true of your students and your students’ families, they might have kids too. So there’s a big complex web of people that may be not able to be or may not be able to participate in person and figuring out a way to make things go on or continue in their absence or in your absence is important. So maybe that means switching to Zoom. If you have to go into quarantine, maybe that means recording your classes and providing that to students who are out. It could be a lot of different things. How will I accommodate this circumstance? is a key question to ask without getting too overwhelmed with trying to do too many things.

John: I already had a situation where I’m teaching a relatively small intro class this time, I only have 189 students in person. And I already received an email from one of those students saying that they will be in quarantine for the first week or so of the term. It’s an international student who just arrived and has to go into quarantine for two weeks before they’re allowed to participate in classes. So you should expect that there’s a good chance that some of your students, even in small classes like mine, might end up having to go into quarantine. And you do want to provide ways for those students to be successful in the class. So I will be live streaming my class in Zoom for those who can’t participate in person.

Rebecca: And like John is mentioning, you probably won’t have a big heads up. Things are going to happen rapidly, and we need to be able to respond rapidly. So think about what works for you and your workflow and the kind of classes you teach. Maybe that means live streaming with Zoom. But if that’s not going to work for you, for whatever reason, then maybe that means recording a class session, or providing an asynchronous equivalent that you’ve developed in previous semesters that can just be made available to students if they need to be out, for example.

John: And we should remember that the last year has been extremely difficult for everybody and some people have been much more heavily affected. And we will be dealing with lots of cases of trauma for both faculty and for students. And we should be prepared for that by, at the very least, having mental health resources available to share with your students could be really helpful. And I suspect many faculty may benefit from that as well.

Rebecca: I think one of the key things is demonstrating care. We talked a lot about this on the podcast over the past year, demonstrating care, caring for students, what does it mean to be in a community of care and acknowledging that the people in your classes, including yourself, are humans who have emotions, can be really helpful. And affirming that people may be experiencing all kinds of trauma from a wide variety of things, not just COVID-19 related, but they might have family members in Afghanistan, they may be a student of color, they may be a student who survived sexual assault, there’s a wide variety of things. And people have been faced or traumatized by that we need to just be aware of and sensitive to. And doing those occasional check ins with students over the course of the semester just saying like, “Hey, how’s it going? Remember, these resources are available,” can go a long way. I remember that last semester, I had students say that no one else had asked them. And it’s not, I think, because our faculty don’t care, because I actually think we have a really deeply caring faculty. So just making sure you’re actually asking the question and making a little space for that is really important.

John: And also consider being more flexible, if possible, with some of your assignments, perhaps not being as rigid with deadlines as you might normally be. Because when students are dealing with issues that may involve life and death of family members, or with family members losing jobs because of economic disruptions, just being more flexible, in general, can be helpful.

Rebecca: Some of that flexibility comes in just providing some grace, like low stakes assignments, or the ability to drop low quiz grades, the ability to make mistakes and learn from it. These are things that aren’t just COVID related or kind of a transitioning back to the classroom related these are really good practices, so that students can develop a growth mindset and really improve over time and we give them the space to improve and the space to learn from mistakes, the space to have life happen, and just let it go and move on.

John: There are so many sources of trauma, we don’t need to make our classes an additional source for our students. We want to provide an environment that’s supportive and nurturing so that students can be successful in our classes. Many faculty have traditionally been very rigid about their deadlines and about the course requirements. But now is an especially good time to reconsider some of those policies.

Rebecca: Along those same lines, we want to be making sure that our students have access in all kinds of ways. So digital materials should meet digital accessibility standards. But we also want to think about cost of books, equipment, etc. and making sure that students have access to what they need no matter where they are. So keeping equipment needs down, software down, book costs down so that students can have access using OERs are all things that we can be thinking about. Digital resources might be particularly helpful at this time, especially if students have to rapidly move into quarantine, it might give them more possibility to have access to things.

John: We’re talking about the need perhaps to keep costs as low as possible in the context of COVID. But in general, we’re seeing a much more diverse mix of students entering our colleges with a much larger proportion of first generation students than at any time before, and many of those students are coming from very low-income households. And in general, I think we need to focus more heavily on the needs of those students, because students who come in with fewer resources tend to be much less successful. And we want to increase the chances of success by keeping costs as low as possible.

Rebecca: As we’re thinking about these same students, many of them are working at part time or even full time or have families that they’re caring for. So doing things like continuing to offer office hours virtually through Zoom or other techniques can be really helpful in meeting students at times that would have been more inconvenient for you, but now are more convenient if you can Zoom in quickly, because you don’t have to be in your office. The same is true for students. So maybe consider continuing that option if it was something that you were offering before in order to accommodate students more.

John: And we’re also in a somewhat unique circumstance this time in that many students have not been in a classroom regularly for over a year. That varies geographically quite a bit but many students have been taking classes from home and the quality of that instruction has varied dramatically across school districts and across households. Given the way we fund schools, primarily through local school property taxes, wealthy school districts have lots of resources for professional development for their teachers. And the students tend to have much better internet connections and have more resources to allow them to be successful in school remotely. In low-income school districts, though, students will often have very poor internet connections, they’ll be using shared devices. And in general, the quality of instruction in those schools and the preparation of the teachers is often quite a bit less. And it’s very likely that we’re going to see a much greater variability in the prior learning of students entering our colleges.

Rebecca: And part of that was our own as a teaching universe],like either higher ed or K12, shifting to modalities that many of us were unfamiliar with. The quality of instruction may just not have been as good and certainly not any of our intentions as instructors. But there’s a learning curve. And some of us took some time to figure out how to do things. And we’re still learning, we’re still trying to get it right. And so students may really need additional structure, more structure than you’re used to providing to help guide them through the materials, to guide them through the semester, to guide them through in person experiences, because they haven’t really interacted with peers that they don’t know, in quite a long time. So the more we can provide guidance, structure, specific roles, even saying, “Hey, we’re going to get into small groups, the first thing you want to do is introduce yourself to one another.” We might need to provide those little extra prompts just to make sure that everyone has equal footing when they start an activity.

John: We’ve mentioned this a little bit before but providing more support or resources, providing videos, practice tests, online tutorials, links to YouTube videos. In almost any discipline, you’ll find someone out there has created some resources that could be helpful for your students. Finding and sharing those with students can take a little bit of time, but it can yield some really dramatic benefits for students who are coming in with very diverse backgrounds.

Rebecca: You can also encourage students to share those materials with each other by providing a platform to do that, you can use discussion boards in your learning management system, you could use tools like Slack or chat capabilities. There’s many ways that we could do this. But the workload doesn’t need to be all on you because there are students who are going to find and be willing to share materials as well.

John: And it’s also really important that we give students early and frequent feedback so that they don’t get to a high-stakes exam and discover that they weren’t quite as ready as they thought they would be. Giving students a chance to practice, to try things, and to see how they’re doing when there’s time to improve can be really useful. So give students feedback as quickly as you can and as often as you can.

Rebecca: And for some of us, that might really mean putting some time in your calendar the first couple of weeks of school to make sure that you grade some things and actually putting it in like it’s an appointment, to make sure it gets done so that students are getting what they need.

John: And you can also, though in a learning management system, create some self-graded quizzes. So it doesn’t have to be something that requires more grading work, but it gives students that immediate feedback. Giving personalized feedback would generally be better, but in larger classes using some automated self-grading quizzes can at least help with that process.

Rebecca: One of the things that I had been thinking about over the summer is how many students that I had that were transfer students or first-year students who never actually stepped foot on campus yet. So we have sophomores and juniors and seniors who may really be unfamiliar with the campus but are physically there. So one of the things that we want to do is think about orienting our students to physical resources that are available. Like, where is the health center? Where are the computer labs? Where are there really nice spaces to sit outside where you have an internet connection? Right? Where are some nice places to socialize? All of these things we might just expect students to know. But in many cases, students have been away or remote for periods of time and they really need to be oriented to these spaces. So I know that I had brainstormed ideas of things that we could do in class that might actually take us to some of those physical spaces, either outside of class or during class. And so I’d encourage you all to think about ways to incorporate some of the physicality of in-person experiences if you’re teaching in person. One of the things that I’ve been really excited about, having taught synchronously online over the past semester, are some of these really great collaborative virtual tools that allow for all kinds of participation. I’m sure you’ve heard me mention things about virtual whiteboards, I think I’m a fanatic or something now. I should be, like, an advertisement for all of them. But I really enjoy the ability to collaborate with students, have them provide their opinions, get their questions, get their brainstorms, whatever it might be that we’re doing in class through sticky notes or whiteboard activities, which can be set up to be anonymous, or with names attached, depending on what platform you’re using. And there are some real benefits to having some opportunities for some anonymous participation so that you can get a real pulse on what’s going on in the class without people being concerned about being judged or being afraid to speak up.

John: In general, students who are first-generation students often don’t have the same level of confidence in their success. They haven’t seen as many of their peers going to college and being successful. And the more we can do to help students build confidence that they belong there, and simply telling them that “You belong here,” could be a good starting point. But working towards building a growth mindset, let them know that it’s okay to make mistakes and learn from their mistakes, we want to make sure that they don’t see struggle as being a sign of failure. To make sure that they understand and to reinforce that struggling to learn things is an essential part of learning.

Rebecca: And I think along those same lines, I know, I see this a lot with students, is that they’re afraid to ask for help. Because asking for help is a sign of failure or a sign of weakness or lack of expertise. So making it comfortable and having them have the ability to ask for help and get help is really important and encouraging that early is incredibly important for student success. So if someone’s really struggling with an early concept in that class where the concepts build on one another, and they don’t understand a really foundational idea early on in the semester, and they don’t get the help they need early on, then they’re not going to do any better over the course of the semester. So we need to find ways to welcome those kinds of questions and make it safe to ask those questions and also to get the extra help that some students might actually need.

John: And also to help students feel more comfortable using more small group discussions more think-pair-share type of activities that do not put the same implicit pressure on students to take a stand in front of the whole class, and that anonymous participation that you mentioned, can also be helpful through polls or virtual whiteboards to help students become a little bit more confident and be willing to share their voices more frequently.

Rebecca: I know one tip that I’ve taken away from Viji Sathy and Kelly Hogan is the idea of when you’re doing small group work, having an assigned reporter to just speak on behalf of the group. And so it’s not an individual’s response but it’s the response on behalf of the group. So there’s not so much pressure to be right, because it’s reflective of a collaborative effort and that allows more voices to be heard. And maybe opportunities for others to speak out that might not normally be comfortable speaking out, or seen as experts, or seen as people who are able to speak out or allowed to speak out.

John: So we’d like to wish you all a happy and successful semester and we hope everything goes smoothly but we also hope that you’re prepared for times that may not go as smoothly as you’d like.

Rebecca: I know one thing that I’m wishing for everyone is the collegiality that I’ve seen across our institution and across institutions of sharing resources supporting one another. And I hope that we’ll keep up this spirit collectively to improve the student experience for all students moving forward.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

201. Beyond Trigger Warnings

Many of us have been told to provide trigger warnings to protect students who have been harassed, sexually assaulted, or abused. In this episode, Nicole Bedera joins us to discuss a survivor-centered approach that includes and supports rather than excludes those who have been traumatized. Nicole is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on gender and sexuality with an emphasis on college sexual violence.

Shownotes

Transcript

John: Many of us have been told to provide trigger warnings to protect students who have been harassed, sexually assaulted, or abused. In this episode, we’ll discuss a survivor-centered approach that includes and supports rather than excludes those who have been traumatized.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer.

Rebecca: Together, we run the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at the State University of New York at Oswego.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca: Our guest today is Nicole Bedera. Nicole is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on gender and sexuality with an emphasis on college sexual violence. Welcome, Nicole.

Nicole: Thank you. I’m excited to be here.

John: We’re really happy to have you here. Our teas today are…

Nicole: I’m not drinking tea. I just have water.

Rebecca: Right, being hydrated is good.

Nicole: Yeah, boring but useful, right?

Rebecca: Yeah, definitely. Speaking of boring, I have English afternoon.

John: Well, we’re back to a new normal, at least. [LAUGHTER] ??Normal. In this way, at least everything else may be different, but that’s still the same. And I have T forte blackcurrant tea today.

Rebecca: Ah, an old favorite.

John: It is. It’s a wonderful tea.

Rebecca: We invited you here today to discuss “Beyond Trigger Warnings: A Survivor-Centered Approach to Teaching on Sexual Violence and Avoiding Institutional Betrayal,“ an article you published in Teaching Sociology. In this article, you voiced concerns about the use of trigger warnings. Could you describe these concerns to our listeners?

Nicole: Yes. So my critique of trigger warnings is pretty different from the one that you hear most of the time because it’s very survivor focused. So instead of saying things like we often hear, “Well, trigger warnings are making people weak. If you’re strong enough or tough enough, the world is hard and we shouldn’t be sheltering our students so much.” If anything, I’m probably pro sheltering them a little bit more. A very different way, a very different way. My biggest concern about trigger warnings is they treat survivors like they’re the problem in a classroom. And the biggest problem about that is that it actually undermines the very spirit of Title IX. So what Title IX is about, it doesn’t actually say anything about sexual assault, it’s an issue of gender equity, it’s a sentence long, and the law says that regardless of sex, you should be able to have an equal education. And the reason that sexual assault and harassment comes into it is because it so commonly impacts women specifically, that was what they were arguing at the time. Now we know more, that it also affects a lot of trans, gender nonbinary folks, basically people who are not cisgender men are disadvantaged in their educations, because trauma makes it more difficult to interact. So trauma does things, like it affects the way that you form memories. And that’s why we see on college campuses that it’s so important for survivors to have access to stuff like academic accommodations, to be able to take that midterm a little later, because they actually just might need more time to study because of how trauma brain works. So the whole point of the way that we enact Title IX on college campuses is to make sure that having a history of trauma doesn’t get in the way of your ability to get good grades to get into graduate school, whatever else might be happening, to just pay attention to materials that are important to know. When we use trigger warnings in conversations about sexual assault, the way that usually happens is we tell survivors, “Hey, we’re going to be talking about sexual assault today, if that makes you uncomfortable, you are welcome to leave, you don’t have to come to class today.” Which means we’re asking them to forfeit their education for the comfort of all the other students in class. And so the centerpiece of this argument, that I’m making, is just we shouldn’t do that anymore. It doesn’t make any sense to tell survivors, “Hey, this issue that really affects you, and it’s really important, we don’t think you should be part of the conversation.” That’s not fair from an educational standpoint, or just an equity standpoint.

Rebecca: So what are some of the strategies we can use to include survivors and make them a central part of the conversation and dialogues that are happening in class rather than skirting them or brushing them away?

Nicole: Well, one of the most important things to recognize is that a lot of the things that make survivors upset in our classrooms have nothing to do with triggers. They’re better described as something called institutional betrayal. Institutional betrayal is when you go to someone who works for an institution for help. And instead of helping you they hurt you more. So often these things that are so upsetting for survivors are actually new traumas caused by their professors or other students in class. So when we’re talking about what to do to make survivors more comfortable, rather than saying, “Hey, leave the room, because I’m going to say things that upset you,” we could just stop saying things that will be upsetting, and instead take an approach to talking about sexual violence that is more inclusive of what survivors need to know, where we’re not saying things like, for example, rape myths, or other damaging stereotypes about sexual assault. And I’m a social scientist, I’m a sociologist, and a lot of this stuff just means telling the truth about sexual assault instead of propagating myths and lies that are throughout our society about sexual violence. And so for instructors, step one is knowing your stuff, is knowing what’s really true in these cases,

John: What specific things should instructors know to be prepared to address such issues?

Nicole: Oh, one of the things that a lot of instructors don’t seem to know, and I don’t even get into this in the article, so people listening to the podcast are really getting something special here. But, one of the things that instructors don’t seem to know is that false allegations are pretty rare. And so something that I’ve seen repeatedly happening in classrooms that can be really harmful is for example, setting up a debate where one person is going to take a pro-victim side and another person is going to take a pro-accused side. And these debates often turn into people saying, “But, I was falsely accused, or, “What if I was falsely accused? Don’t I deserve more protections? Don’t I deserve to be…” I don’t know, whatever it is that people are saying the accused students deserve in these cases. And that can be really traumatizing for survivors, because they’re not lying, false allegations are not common. And the entire classroom is being taught that you shouldn’t believe survivors when they come forward, that you should question them. And that instead of saying, our ideal response to sexual assault would be when a survivor comes forward and says, “Hey, something isn’t working for me in this classroom, something isn’t working for me on campus, I can’t sleep in my dorm because my perpetrator lives down the hall,” whatever it is, instead of everybody saying, “Hmm, but what if that’s a lie?” it would be better to just say, “Do you need to move dorms? Do you need help in your classes?” And so when survivors have to sit through things like the damaging myth of false allegations that’s going to inherently be harmful, especially coming from professors. Because professors are supposed to be the ones that are holding knowledge and sharing knowledge with other groups, we’re in quite a position of power in our classrooms, we’re often the one standing in front of maybe hundreds of students at a large university, telling them what the truth is. And so the ripple effect is not only on that victim, who’s saying, “Oh, wow, I didn’t realize that maybe a lot of people lie. And maybe I should feel guilty or ashamed and I shouldn’t tell people and they’re right to question me.” That’s something a survivor might feel. But also all of the other students in class are thinking, like, wow, victims lie, or these people call themselves victims lie, maybe I should be more suspicious. So it has a really big ripple effect across society. And this is something that I think is really central to college sexual assault in particular, because it’s not just that what happens in our classroom stays in our classrooms. We’re teaching young people, and sometimes not so young people, what to expect in the workplace, what is normal, and we can sort of see that ripple effect across society.

John: So the focus should be on providing support for the victims, and listening to them, and trying to make them more comfortable in the classroom.

Nicole: Yeah, that’s exactly it. And there are a lot of things that you can do to make survivors feel more comfortable. The first recommendation in the article is just, know your stuff. Stop telling lies about sexual violence in your classroom, it’s a really straightforward one. But survivors also have some other needs that can make them feel more comfortable when talking about difficult topics. And so things like letting everyone know in advance that it’s okay to have an emotional response to the material, and that people who are not survivors may also have an emotional response to the material. That can make survivors feel a lot more comfortable staying in the classroom. Because if you don’t set something like that up, survivors are going to feel like, if I cry, or if I get upset, everyone’s going to know that I’m a victim. And I don’t want everyone to know, I’m a victim. So maybe I should skip class today to keep that secret, especially if, say, the perpetrator is in their friend group, the perpetrator is in the class, which happens as much as we don’t like to think about. It’s better if they can just say, “You know what, it’s okay, if I’m emotional, and I can just fit in. And it doesn’t necessarily mean anything.” That can also help too, I mean, other students who aren’t survivors do feel uncomfortable if they get emotional about this stuff, as well. And one of the ways that they can sometimes, unintentionally, create a kind of difficult dynamic in the classroom is by them wanting to process their feelings as being, “Oh, it’s so hard for me, my friend was sexually assaulted.” And people who don’t have those experiences are often a lot more open with those stories than people who are victims themselves. And so they might, for example, tell the story of another student sitting in class and tell their story of sexual assault that maybe that student didn’t want to hear. And so when instead of saying, “All right, we’re not going to address the emotional component, we’re not going to set standards around how people feel in this classroom, anything can happen,” as opposed to saying, “It’s okay if you get upset, and we can talk about some of the things that made you upset. Also, while we’re on it, let’s be really cautious about not sharing people’s personal stories, because we want to make sure everybody gets to choose whether or not we know their stories and whether or not we talk about them as an educational exercise.” So things like that can just be really helpful, really, really helpful.

John: In the article, you also noted that just talking about the issue is not always a trigger, that there are many things that could serve as triggers, you mentioned, it could be the smell of certain gum that the perpetrator had been chewing or a song that was playing at the time of the attack. So it sounds as if triggers could happen at any time and we should be prepared for that possibility.

Nicole: Right. A lot of the way we talk about triggers is, again, using this pretty conservative logic that victims are so sensitive and so fragile. And so if you even mention sexual assault around them, they can’t handle it. So first of all, that’s not true. Lots of victims talk a lot about sexual assault, there’s a reason that therapy, for example, is healing instead of necessarily hurtful. If just the mention of sexual assault, the reminder it exists was hurtful, therapy would not be helpful, right? But on the other hand, there are lots of things that trigger a traumatic response that have nothing to do with sexual assault. And some of them are really unpredictable. I trained as a victim advocate and worked as a victim advocate before I came to graduate school. And in my training, one of the things that they told us was about the story of a survivor who thought she was making a lot of progress and healing from her trauma but then had this setback and she couldn’t identify why she was so upset all the time. And the reason was really simple: something had changed in her life. I don’t remember if she’d gotten a new apartment or a new job, what it was doesn’t matter. But she now had to walk by a KFC every day. And she’d been sexually assaulted behind a KFC. And so that smell of fried chicken was triggering a panicked response in her. And ironically enough, the rape crisis center I worked at was also next to a KFC. So coming into her sessions, she was also getting triggered. And that’s something that nobody ever could have guessed. So when choosing where the rape crisis center should be, they probably weren’t thinking, oh, but what if KFC moves in next door that can be triggering for victims, right? It’s not something you think about. And so instructors really should be prepared for if a survivor gets triggered in the classroom, if they get really upset, you don’t need to know why, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to make a huge adjustment. If it’s something that random, right, if it’s not your fault, if it’s something totally random, then that makes sense. But you do need to have ways to help survivors know what to do in that situation to say, “Hey, you know, if you do need to step out for a minute, that’s okay, you don’t owe me any information, you don’t have to apologize, you don’t have to explain your behavior if you are in a place where you are reliving your trauma, and you cannot pay attention, but it is fine to step away for a moment. And you can also rejoin class five minutes later, if you feel better,” which I think is something a lot of survivors don’t hear enough from their professors. They hear a lot of how to leave but not how to come back, or they worry that it’s too disruptive to come back. I want to add, too, that some of these triggers are a little bit more predictable. So for example, if the perpetrator is in the classroom, and the perpetrator is engaging in ways that are scary, or they’re even maybe whispering while the victim is trying to make a comment in class. That isn’t posing a direct threat in the moment, but it’s going to be a trigger of the assault. Or if the perpetrator’s friends are present or anything that’s going to be a constant reminder of the assault. And these are things that, again, to the instructor look totally random. Because you have no idea what the relationship is between your students, you have no idea why one student is uncomfortable or afraid in the presence of another. And so we do have to think about triggers. Instead of trying to say we’re going to control it and make sure they never happen in our classroom saying okay, we actually do need to know what to do when they happen to make sure that victims can still continue to learn in this classroom space.

Rebecca: In your article, you talk a lot about ways to set the tone at the beginning of class and in the syllabus. Can you talk a little bit about how to set that tone for the class so that students do know what to do if they are triggered, if there’s something that they want to reveal to you, ways that we can continue to support them and know that we’ll support them throughout the semester?

Nicole: Yeah, I have a couple of different things that I do at the beginning of the semester, depending on what the class is. I am a sexual violence researcher. I teach classes that are just on sexual violence every day, we talk about sexual violence in class. So in a class like that, I set the tone in a pretty different way, in a pretty intentional way where we start from the very beginning. I have them read a chapter about how difficult it is to do sexual violence research and hear these stories all the time. And it’s their first day’s homework, just in case they don’t have time to read it, I set aside some time in class to at least skim it and to talk through, not so much this is going to be a terrible experience, even though the chapter is a little hard to read, but just say: What makes you anxious? What are you nervous about? Let’s talk about it from the very beginning of the term. And then that turns into a class of, “Okay, so what do you need? When you feel those things, you’re afraid that you’re going to get overwhelmingly emotional in class, what would make you feel like you could stay in the classroom? What can we do as a community to make you feel comfortable?” Because if you don’t have a conversation, most people when someone starts crying next to them just feel awkward, especially if they don’t know them that well. And I will say that one of the things that happens in my classes, the students tend to get to know each other a lot better than they do in other classes, because these are really vulnerable conversations. And that can be nice for even just basic things like working on group projects, or studying for exams, so it’s kind of an unintended and positive consequence of this kind of conversation. We also watch a video where we talk about the importance of vulnerability and how to be able to address these feelings. We need to talk about vulnerability, it’s a Brené Brown video, many of the listeners have probably already seen it, it’s gone very, very viral very, very many times. But after that we talk about this idea of communal vulnerability. So instead of saying, “Okay, like, I need to think about what I do for myself,” which is something that I think we all tend to do when we think about some things can be overwhelming, we think about, okay, what about when it’s hard for me? And I try to turn the conversation to say, “What about when it’s hard for the person next to you?” So what do you need and what can you give? And that’s the conversation on day one in the classes where we’re talking about violence all the time. In classes like, intro to sociology, where we’re talking about sexual assault maybe one week out of the term, I still, on the first day of class, I don’t necessarily talk about sexual assault very much I do point it out on the syllabus to let people know, “Hey, there’s some stuff coming up in the class.” But I don’t just bring that up in sexual violence. We talk about a lot of different kinds of violence in my classes in general. So I’ll have the same conversation about something like police brutality to be like, “Hey, heads up, it’s coming.” And then, knowing that these tough topics are coming up, I will ask students, “All right, this stuff can be pretty controversial,” which is sort of a weird way of putting it, but, “this stuff can be controversial or hurtful or personal. And so what do you want to happen when conflict arises?” And I use that question to open the same conversation about, what do we do when we need someone to step in, because something bad happens? That’s really what it’s code for. And so even though we’re not explicitly talking about violence on the first day, which I try to avoid a little bit, because the students weren’t prepared, they didn’t know that was going to happen. So that can be pretty shocking. Instead, we still get to flesh out some of those norms around, what do we do if someone gets upset? When do you want me to intervene, as an instructor and say, “All right, actually, that wasn’t okay. And we’re not going to tolerate that kind of statement, or whatever it is in the classroom.” And yeah, it’s worked pretty well. Even distance learning, during the pandemic, I was surprised by how well it worked in some of my classes.

Rebecca: One of the questions that I think often comes up where we’re talking about any sorts of inclusive pedagogy or trauma informed pedagogy are kind of two things. One is, I don’t teach a class where these are topics. So how do I set the stage in a class like that? And then the other thing that comes up is, I’m not a counselor. So how am I supposed to deal with this? So can you address those two common concerns that people have?

Nicole: Yeah, so one thing we know about sexual violence and trauma is it doesn’t turn off just because you’re in math class, like, it doesn’t just go away. And so regardless of what topic you’re teaching, a lot of professors are going to hear this stuff. And a lot of the stuff that I cover in the article about things like students coming to you and telling you they’re a survivor in office hours. That happens, especially to women faculty, regardless of discipline, and so you do need to still be prepared for it. And that’s going to be the same case for like graduate student instructors, they come to you, they find you more comfortable than their professors a lot of the time. And so some things that you can do is just include some syllabus statements that have resources covered. A lot of schools do require a syllabus statement already talking about what Title IX is and your Title IX rights. And I remember being a student when this stuff was introduced on college campuses. The first year it was in my alma mater’s syllabus statement requirement, I was in my senior year. And so many of the professors complained about it, or they dismissed it and they said, “We’re not going to cover this because it’s not important to the class.” And for a survivor sitting there, that sends a pretty clear message that they can’t come to you when they need help, that you don’t know what to do, that maybe what happened to them isn’t important. And so one thing you can do is just actually talk about the syllabus statements. And you know, you don’t have to like them, either, I’ll say that. And I’m going to say specifically, you don’t have to like them and think that they’re sufficient. I don’t. And so when I talk to students about them, I actually explicitly say, “So this statement is here. And I’m not going to read it, because I don’t think that it covers everything that you need to know. But I’ve included these other resources that I think are important. So we’re going to talk about when you need this stuff, if anyone in this class needs the stuff, here’s what’s in the syllabus. And do you have any questions?” And that’s something I ask a lot. Has anybody ever actually read the Title IX statement? And if they did, do you know what Title IX is? Do you know what the office offers? Do you know where the victim advocacy office is? So anybody, regardless of discipline, can have that conversation on the first day. The other thing you can do, again, you don’t have to couch all of this in discussing sexual violence, like you can just do this to be a compassionate instructor, but to tell students how you can handle whatever concerns might come up. Whether it’s something like a family member getting sick, or you needing to be hospitalized for a period of time, or, yeah, sexual assault to set a standard of this is how you can come to me with these questions, this is how you can talk to me if you need something, if there’s a problem. And to set some expectations around, you don’t have to tell me what happened to you. This is just how you can get help if you need it. You don’t owe me your traumatic story to get help. And so that’s one thing I would recommend, as well as just being aware that if you’re seeing a dynamic between students that seems disruptive or uncomfortable, being prepared to check in, say, “Hey, what’s going on,” and knowing that, for example, if you have a victim and perpetrator in the same class, the perpetrator is going to lie to you. And they’re going to make it sound like the victim is the one who has the problem. So being prepared to sort of parse out some of those difficulties, which might mean bringing in someone more qualified than you. Which brings me to the second half of your question: If I’m not a counselor, I don’t want to talk about this stuff. So what do I do? I actually think that’s perfectly fine. I think it’s perfectly fine when a student comes to you, and they’re looking for help to say, “Hey, I support you. And I want you to get everything you need. And also the things that you’re asking for do require the help of someone who knows what they’re doing. And that’s not me.” And there’s absolutely nothing wrong in saying, “I will help you find the resources available on campus.” And this is a conversation that I just don’t think you should have to have with a professor. And a lot of the victims, so in my research, I interview victims about their experiences seeking help on campus. And one of the things they bring up the most is they’re just really, really nervous that their professors will think differently of them and they’re nervous they’re going to have to tell the story of their sexual assault. A lot of them do not want to tell you, they’re telling you because they feel like they have to to get you to give them help. And so if you make really clear, I don’t need to hear the story, I do want to help you. And you can even say things like, “I’m not a counselor, but here is what I can offer.” Because it’s really dismissive, if you just say, “I’m not a counselor, I’m not helping you.” But if instead you say, “I am not a counselor, but I can connect you to a counselor, I can tell you where they are on campus, or in the community, or wherever. And also, if you need anything in my class, here’s a template, for example, for how you can email me. You can be like, hey, Professor Bedera, I really need an extension, I’m having a hard time with this assignment. And we can set up in advance how much information you need to share, or whatever it is.” So make sure when you’re saying, “I’m not a counselor, and I can’t help you with the emotional help that you need,” to make sure you offer something too.

Rebecca: One of the things that you also mentioned, Nicole, is that that labor is a little more heavy on female faculty. Can you talk a little bit about managing that labor and the emotional toll that might take on faculty and maybe what faculty members who are experiencing hearing a lot of these stories can do?

Nicole: Yeah, you need to take care of yourselves, especially because we know that a lot of faculty are survivors themselves of campus sexual assault, or perhaps are being sexually harassed right now. They have survivors coming to them for help and they are experiencing the betrayals of the institution themselves as faculty. That’s a really difficult position to be in. So it’s really important to take care of yourself. And so one of the things that’s actually came from an R&R, so thank you reviewers for pushing me to include this in the article. But one of the things that I talk about is my own sort of ritual for self care, because I share these stories all the time. I also, because I cover these issues of violence pretty explicitly, hear about lots of other types of violence my students are experiencing all the time. And it does, it takes a toll you get exhausted and just sad. It just feels heavy. And then it does start to get into your head of like, okay, so how do I come back to class and pile on? Especially in a discipline like sociology, where we’re not really known for bringing good news to our students. And so some of the things that I do, is just in general I sort of have some supports in place, I have other faculty, graduate students, friends, who I can chat with about these things. I think it’s a good idea to keep these conversations pretty power neutral. So if you’re a faculty, go to other faculty, don’t go to your graduate students, if you’re a graduate student, maybe your advisor can help you but also, you’ll probably be able to speak more openly to other graduate students. So make sure that you’re thinking about the power dynamics involved there, too. And so for me, studying sexual violence, I mostly hang out with other sexual violence researchers when talking about this kind of stuff, because it’s really easy to talk to each other. You don’t have to back up and explain something, which is another thing to think about when you’re choosing who you’re using as your support system. Maybe somebody who is a good friend doesn’t know very much about this stuff. And so you find yourself having to educate them the whole way and that’s pretty tiring. So if your support system isn’t working for you, and it’s more tiring than it is useful, find someone else. But that support is really, really helpful for me, just as a regular thing that exists. And then I also have some stuff where when I’m sort of in an emergency, when something particularly bad happened, I have my short term measures to see if it’ll fix it, which are a lot of traditional self care, kind of things. Like I eat mac and cheese after a bad day, just always, that goes back to my victim advocacy days. But I also do things like, dating back to my victim advocacy days, they talked about the importance of having a ritual, especially when one of the things that victim advocates will do is they’ll manage crisis lines. So if you’ve ever seen those numbers, maybe you put them on your syllabus to say, “This is who you call, if you need to talk to someone.” That’s something that I did as a victim advocate, and you’re doing that often in your home. And so just like we’re teaching in our homes, a lot of us still are right now, it can be hard to get that separation at the end of the day. So they taught us about the importance of a ritual. And it sounded so hokey to me, because the person who I was talking to said, “Oh, I wash my hands after every call to tell myself it’s over and I can relax.” Oh my God, that would not work. I’m not doing that. But then I started working in the hospitals where, yeah, I washed my hands after every time I left the hospital because of germs. And the one night that I forgot to wash my hands was the one night I couldn’t sleep, it makes such a huge difference. So my research assistants, the people I talk about this the most with and they’ve come up with a bunch of different things that they do, as just sort of that, wow, that was kind of heavy. And I need to give myself a mental break. So some of them will get a cup of tea, is actually on the list.

Rebecca: It’s a good choice.

Nicole: Yeah, exactly. It’s a good choice, or a glass of water, or take a walk around the block, or text a specific friend, or pet an animal, whatever it might be. Just something that will tell you, “Okay, this is fine.” But sometimes that won’t be enough. Sometimes these little rituals that we have these things that we do for self care will not be adequate. And so in those cases, it’s important to do the harder hitting stuff, like speaking to a therapist, maybe calling one of these crisis lines and asking for some assistance, getting some validation, and they’ll have some ideas of people who you can talk to. And then the stuff that’s really boring about self care too, like, maybe there’s just a lot on your plate right now and that’s why you don’t have time or emotional energy to think about this stuff. And so, that to-do list of things that we all don’t get through like making a doctor’s appointment, or paying your bills, or whatever, like doing some of that stuff so that you have mental space to think through those things. That stuff is really, really important. And then also just to be honest with yourself and check in with yourself. If you are a survivor, about: How do I feel about this? Am I projecting onto the student? Am I doing a good job caring for them? Or am I actually making it a little bit worse? And so that’s actually where the boundary setting becomes important again, because as much as you might want to be there for your students, if you yourself are triggered, you can’t be, you’re going to end up hurting them instead. And so instead of just forcing yourself to get through that meeting, saying, “Hey,” you don’t have to tell them why, but just, “I don’t think I’m the best person for this conversation, and I want to support you, but can I help you find someone who will be able to support you better?” And it’s so important to take care of yourself as much as you’re taking care of your students.

John: One of the things that comes up in your article is the issue of institutional betrayal. Could you talk a little bit about some of the ways in which that shows up in practice, and perhaps what faculty could do to encourage the institution to move in a better direction on these issues?

Nicole: Yeah, that’s a really good question to ask right now. Because actually, the Biden administration is making huge changes to the way Title IX and campus sexual assault are managed. So far, it’s been kind of a quiet process, there have been some survivor listening sessions, but not a whole lot else is happening, at least that the public can see. So they’re doing a lot of things behind closed doors, making conversations about what to do next. But it’s something you should keep an ear to the ground for. Because if there are things you really care about, policy is being made. And so, for example, a lot of sexual assault researchers, including myself, have signed on to petitions to try to get rid of the mandatory reporting requirement, because it doesn’t serve survivors, it hurts them. Survivors need to be in control of what happens when they tell their stories, not be forced into an investigation or talking to the police or whatever else is happening on college campuses. They need the right to choose. And so this is a really good moment to think about things like contacting your legislators, sending a little email to the Department of Education, as well as the Title IX staff at your school because a lot of them are involved in these conversations. And they have the connections to people who are really involved in these conversations. So if you care about this stuff, speak up. So that’s thing number one, to address institutional betrayal, but I mentioned at the beginning that institutional betrayals are new traumas, they are similar in severity to a sexual assault itself. So if you’re wondering how important or bad this is, it’s really bad, it’s really, really bad. Before we had the term institutional betrayal, a lot of people got at the same idea by calling it the second rape. And there they were talking specifically about the criminal justice system, and the way that it defiled survivors and institutional betrayals a little bit broader. But yeah, the idea is that a university, which is where this comes from, but really any institution’s action, or inaction, can be just as traumatizing as the assault itself. And so some of the things that come up are things, like, survivors being punished for telling their stories. So if we put this in the context of a classroom, if a survivor discloses to you, say in an essay, that they were sexually assaulted, and then you call the police, which they didn’t want, that can feel like a punishment. Or if you get awkward around them, and you don’t call on them in class anymore, you treat them like they’re super fragile, and they can’t handle anything, that’s going to feel like a punishment for disclosing. Some survivors, also, I can think of cases from my research, where if a survivor was accusing another faculty member of sexual assault, the faculty in that department would retaliate against them and treat them poorly. So that’s a form of punishment, too. And so there are a lot of things that we are doing as faculty that are hurting survivors in a new way. And so a really important thing is to think about things from the perspective of that student, think about what they need, put yourself back in the shoes of being a student. And about maybe you look at them, and you say, “Well, they’re not handling my policies right. My syllabus says that they need to contact me in this way. And the way that they ask for accommodations was wrong.” Instead of thinking that way, remember how overwhelming it is to be a college student, remember that the norms of academia are foreign to you and might be a little bit harder to learn if you were dealing with trauma at the same time, and to be gentle about it. But yeah, when I think about institutional betrayals that happened in classrooms, a lot of them really are around mandatory reporting, which is part of why I bring it up. And it’s one of the questions that I get most often is: I want to help survivors, but I’m a mandatory reporter. So what can I do aside from just report them? And in these cases, in the article I do not pull any punches here, I just say: don’t do it, defy your campus policies. Sometimes the policies are unjust, and you shouldn’t follow them just because it’s the rules. If you know that it’s hurting someone, use your better judgment. But this is also again, a really important time to think about these things that your survivor activists on campus, every campus has them, every single one across the country, including some of the more conservative religious schools, you wouldn’t expect. I went to undergrad in Utah and I’m going to tell you that BYU has survivor activists making a lot of noise on their campus, and they can tell you what they need. And so listen to them and support them, especially in these moments. It’s so weird to talk about this stuff right now, from a federal policy standpoint, because campus sexual violence is in this strange gray area where the Biden administration hasn’t completely repealed what the Trump administration did, but they’re not enforcing all of it, but they kind of are. And the Trump administration’s rules were really, really vague. And so there were a lot of things that schools could do, but they could also choose not to. So right now universities have a huge amount of latitude in how they want to handle this stuff, they don’t really have the excuse of saying, “Oh, the federal government says that we can’t do X, Y, or Z for survivors.” In most cases, they can probably give survivors exactly what they’re looking for. And so as faculty, we can really support survivor activists in doing things. One of my favorite ways that survivors can get help from faculty, is we understand the complex web of bureaucracy on college campuses. So if you have a student in your class, who is really excited about survivor advocacy, they’ve been doing activism on campus, and they just can’t seem to find the right person to direct their concerns at, you can probably identify, “Actually, it’s this person in the dean of students office that needs to hear what you’re saying,” or, “This is the email for the Title IX coordinator,” or whatever it is, really small things. But one thing we all need to be doing right now is just holding our universities accountable. Because as much as they say that they take sexual violence seriously, I think anyone who spent time on a campus for very long knows that they would really prefer to not have to deal with these cases, to not have to discuss these things, to just be able to go back to ignoring sexual violence like they did 15 years ago. And the best thing we can do is just make that hard on them and say, “No, we’re not, we’re not going to ignore survivors, we’re going to do the right thing and support them.” Especially because a lot of the survivors never would have met their assailants unless we looked the other way at fraternity parties, unless we looked the other way for whatever the football team decides to do, we’re all sort of complicit in this. And that’s why the institutional betrayals run so deep. And that’s the other thing about institutional betrayal is whether or not it’s fair, survivors don’t understand these bureaucracies. They don’t know who is responsible for these decisions. And I can’t tell you how many survivors I’ve interviewed who said that they distrusted their professors because of decisions made by Title IX, or the Dean of students office, or whatever other organization on campus. And so a lot of your students are coming to your classroom already from a place of distrust, not knowing who will take care of them and who will not. And so making really clear that if you’re going to make those promises to be there for survivors, you really do need to get up for them, even when it can be difficult. And you have to earn that trust from the very beginning.

Rebecca: One thing that we haven’t covered, but seems very important to cover is how common sexual assault is on campuses.

Nicole: It is very, very common. There are so many different types of numbers that I can throw your way. But I’m going to give you three statistics that I just think everybody should know. One, everybody on a college campus should know at least, and one of them is just the number you’ve probably heard before, which is that one in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted. And one in five is actually one of the more conservative estimates coming from the research world. It uses, we’re going to get a little technical, and so we’re going to go for it, it uses cross sectional data. So for anybody who’s not a social scientist, that is when researcher comes in, and they give a survey out to every student, it doesn’t matter if they’ve been on campus for four years or one week, and they ask them about their sexual assault experiences. So it would stand to reason that those students who’ve been on campus for a year or less still might be sexually assaulted if we were to follow them all the way through. In the most harrowing studies, they do follow students all the way through their sexual assault experiences all the way through college. And that captures not only students who otherwise, they would have gotten that questionnaire before they were assaulted maybe a year later, but also students who at the end might have downplayed or minimized something that happened to them because people on campus suggested they should. And so that wasn’t captured in the data either. So when we look at this type of data, when we look at asking students across all of their time in college about sexual assault, and asking them every year, we find that the number might be closer to one in three. So it’s a lot more common than even your campus sexual assault prevention trainings are probably telling you. The other number that I think is really important to know, and I guess as an addition, on to that number, we don’t have a ton of great data about the experiences of people who are not cisgender women. But we do know that sexual assault is more common among trans students. It is more common among queer women in particular. And even among cisgender men, estimates say that it’s happening pretty often not as often as the other groups, but it’s still happening pretty often. There’s some difficulties in defining it, the studies are a little messy. But yeah, it’s happening across campus. If you look across a lecture hall, a lot of students and you picture, on average, about a third of your students have been sexually assaulted while in school. This does not include childhood sexual abuse, this does not happen to them in high school before they got to college. You’re talking about a lot of survivors in your classroom. It’s not one challenging student, it’s not one difficult student. And so if you really are telling students, “Hey, if you’re a sexual assault survivor, and you can’t handle it, leave,” it’s surprising we don’t often see a third of students getting up and walking out. But the other number that I want to comment on and again, I keep bringing this up, because it’s something we don’t like to think about is the perpetration rate. And the best study that we have so far finds that 1 in 10 men on college campuses committed sexual assault before they graduate. So the perpetrators are very much in the midst as well. Everybody involved in sexual assaults will be in your classroom at one point or another. Statistically speaking, you can’t avoid it. And I’ll add one more thing too, which is that all of this research is on undergraduates, and the little bit of research we have now about graduate students finds that graduate students are the most likely to be sexually harassed or assaulted on campus.

Rebecca: With those disturbing facts in mind, what is the psychological and academic consequences of victims being triggered again and again, or being victims of institutional betrayal throughout their college education?

Nicole: Anybody who’s really interested in this question should go to Know Your IX’s website and read their new report that came out just a month ago, maybe two months ago, called “The Cost of Reporting.” And it gets into the experience of institutional betrayal specifically. And what we find is that survivors who have been betrayed in comparison to other survivors are more likely to drop out, they are more likely to have a lower GPA. I actually read a paper that if the findings, we’ll see if they’re replicated, but if they hold would suggests that a woman experiencing sexual assault is the best predictor of her college GPA. Because whether or not she experienced sexual assault, that’s a better predictor than the SAT, it’s a better predictor than high school GPA. So we know that the impact on education is really, really significant. And that’s a big part of why professors should care about it. Survivors are having a really hard time in all of our classes. I’m really glad you asked this question because everybody sort of assumes, oh, sexual assault is bad. We know rape is bad. But if you ask people why they often can’t put a finger on it. And so I’m going to do that for you. I’m going to tell you exactly why sexual assault is wrong. And so I’m going to start with the stuff you know, which is, it is psychologically distressing, survivors are more likely to have difficulties with things like sleep, they’re more likely to have anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, like flashbacks, uncontrollable sort of psychological reactions and distress, and they have a hard time with things like feeling comfortable with sex as well. But there are also a lot of other impacts of sexual violence we don’t talk about as much. One is chronic health problems. Survivors are a lot more likely to have chronic headaches and chronic back aches than other populations. I also know of survivors, some of these things are a little bit more difficult to tease out, but who they know individually, that their sexual assault led them to have other chronic health problems. I knew one survivor, one of the ways that she managed the trauma for sexual assault was through controlling her eating, which is pretty common is for survivors to develop eating disorders. But hers was so severe that she had created lesions on her throat that were precancerous. And so she’s having conversations with oncologists about how likely she is to develop cancer in her early 20s. And this is directly related to the way that she was managing the stress of her sexual assault and the trauma of her sexual assault. So chronic health conditions play a really big role as well. There is a huge financial impact for being sexually assaulted. It’s going to affect your career trajectory, especially if you are on a college campus. This is research I want to do but have not done yet, is to describe a little more about how that happens. We know that it affects things like lifetime earnings, but we don’t know for example, if sexual assault makes survivors want to change their majors to get away from their perpetrators or to get to places that are more friendly to survivors, which will probably, if you’re a woman, going to end up to be more feminine majors on campus, the ones where they’re a lot more women in the room might feel more comfortable. And so anecdotally, I’ve heard a lot of that kind of stuff in my research, but jury’s still out on whether or not it’s a really huge issue, but even if it’s one survivor that matters. And then the other thing I’ll say is that sexual assault, once you’ve been victimized, you’re at a higher risk of being victimized again, especially if you are hearing blaming comments, especially if you come to think that it is your responsibility to prevent sexual assault. In my research I’ve heard so many stories of survivors who when they were in a dangerous situation recognized it but thought it was their responsibility to change their perpetrators behavior, felt like they kind of had to freeze and just sit through it because of those blaming comments. And this is a really important thing to pull out too, is that this is a scary list. But access to supportive resources, to a supportive community can make it less likely that survivors have to experience all of these impacts, they are not a given, they’re not part of the trauma, they’re part of the institutional betrayal, they’re part of the response to trauma. And then the last one that we talk a lot, interestingly enough, about how being accused of sexual assault, anecdotally has led to suicidal ideation. There’s no research to support that, necessarily, the two are connected, but it’s the phrase that we hear a lot in our society, is accusing someone of sexual assault could end their life. But in reality, we do know that survivors are at a very high risk of suicide in the aftermath of sexual assault. And that intensifies after institutional betrayal. This feeling of not only did my perpetrator hurt me, but other people are going to continue to hurt me and no one cares, and if this happens again no one will do anything about it. That’s a really heavy burden to be on survivors. And that kind of thinking, that kind of nobody cares, nobody at my university is going to do anything to support me, that is something that professors contribute to so it’s a really important one for us to think about. It’s a heavy list.

John: It is.

Rebecca: I’m feeling the weight of it.

Nicole: Yeah, it’s sort of worse than we even usually hear about. And it does come up in really small ways too. So I used to work with a program that taught fraternity men around campus sexual violence and it was intended to prevent campus sexual violence. And I was having the hardest time getting through to them, as you can imagine, and I was working with a really challenging fraternity. This fraternity was the reason the prevention program was implemented because they used to use gang rape as a hazing ritual. And it had been long enough, since that was happening, that the current brothers and the fraternity wasn’t that long ago, it was less than10 years, but none of them were students at the time. And so they were really angry that they still had to sit through these prevention trainings, and they just didn’t get why this stuff mattered. And in one particularly tense encounter, one of them said to me, “Nobody even cares about this anymore. Everyone has moved on.” And I was just thinking, the victims of your fraternity have not moved on. They’re not done feeling this, they probably will never fully escape what this fraternity did to them. And I went home, and I got on Facebook, and I wrote, just to my friends, “Hey, I’m working with this fraternity,” sort of explained the situation, said they’re not getting it, “Would any of you record a message for them if you were sexually assaulted at least five years ago?” which is how long it had been since the last gang rape, “If you were sexually assaulted five years ago, will you record a message saying how it still affects you today.” So a few of my friends sent in recordings for them, I actually still use these in classes with the consent of the survivors. Some of them, some have withdrawn consent, I don’t use those anymore. But they listened to the first one and they felt really uncomfortable, but nobody’s really saying anything, like one guy was kind of pushing back and being, like, “Well that’s just one story.” And they listened to the second one. And it was the third one that kind of broke them. And one of the men who was getting really emotional, the detail that stood out to him was that the victim had described how in the aftermath of her sexual assault, one of the ways that she coped, I forgot to mention this one, was through alcohol and drug abuse. And that had really impacted her grades. We kind of know this, that our students are going to parties on a regular basis, some of them are going to be good students, and some of them you know, if you’re hungover in class, you’re not getting the material. And so that’s sort of how she framed it. She was like, I was not a great student, because I was abusing substances, not the language she would use. But she said that she wanted to go to law school, and that studying for the LSAT was so stressful, because to be able to get in now, because her grades were so bad, she needed a near perfect score. And this man who was getting emotional said, “I’m studying for the LSAT. And I used to go to class hungover because I was partying in this fraternity and people like my brothers from a few years ago, were the ones who put her in the situation. And I know how stressful it is. I know how hard this is. And it is so unfair that I made the decision to blow off my academics and she didn’t.” Those little details, I think, really helped us understand what exactly the stakes are for survivors. Usually we talk about this stuff sort of in the abstract because it’s more comfortable, it’s so personal, it’s so scary. But hearing the weight of all of this is really important. I’m glad you asked.

Rebecca: I think those personal stories are what really helps people connect to the data, the data is really easy to ignore, if it feels really abstract.

Nicole: Yeah, I mean, it’s one of the reasons the Me Too movement has been so powerful, because when you hear about sexual assault survivors, maybe watch a True Crime documentary here and there. These are not people you know. It’s not the same experience as getting onto your own social media profile and seeing someone who you thought you were really close to, and realizing that they had the secret that they were holding to themselves, and that they were sexually assaulted and realizing, oh, wow, maybe I actually said some things in front of them that were not supportive because I didn’t realize there was a survivor in the room. And that’s something that I really just think we should all be thinking about more often is most of the time there is a survivor in the room. The problem is so widespread, it is so everywhere, that even when we’re talking about just campus sexual assault, if that was the only time sexual assault happened in anyone’s lifetimes, chances are, if there are 10 people in a room, there’re going to be some survivors, multiple, present. And yeah, we don’t really think about the personal stories very much. And we don’t really think about how, the other thing, maybe the gem that comes out of all of my classes, my students say this thing that resonates with them the most, is that we’re all really comfortable supporting survivors in the abstract. Maybe we don’t do it because we don’t realize how important it is but we’re willing to do it. The messiness, and it’s why I keep bringing it up, is when there’s a perpetrator, who you also know. That’s when people start to turn because the uncomfortable reality is that we all do know and love a rapist. They are in our inner circle just as much. Again, assuming all sexual violence happens on college campuses, which it does not, it’s 1 in 10 men. And so the idea that we only have survivors around and we don’t have any perpetrators, and that what they want will not come into conflict is the difficult part. And this is something that I’ve seen play out in the classroom over and over and over again, is this idea of, well, I have both students in my class. And I want to be fair equally to both students. And that’s not really a fair position to take, because there’s such a big power disparity between the two of them. What a rapist wants, which may be also to use your class to control and humiliate and harm their victim, that does happen, if that’s what they want you can’t really put that in comparison to a victim who just wants to get their degree and get out of there, which is what most of them really do want to do. And so yeah, it’s messy. It’s messy, and it’s personal, and parsing out all of the difficulties of, really the hard stuff that you have to do when a survivor comes to you and says, “I need something.” It’s not always an easy decision, especially if you haven’t thought in advance about what you’re going to do in a situation like that one.

Rebecca: That’s a lot of things for us to be thinking about as we prepare for the fall and get ready for this semester, what resources we might want to have bookmarked on our computers, things that we want to put in our syllabus how we might want to handle setting the stage the first day.

Nicole: Yeah, definitely. I’m glad that this podcast is dropping when it is, because thinking about this stuff from the beginning of the semester is a lot easier than if something comes up in the middle and you’ve never thought about it. It can be so stressful and overwhelming, I get lots of panicked emails from people that are, like, “Oh my God, I’ve never thought about this, what do I do?” And it’s in those moments that we don’t know what to do that we sort of fall back on what’s culturally normative. And in our society, that’s usually the side of the perpetrator. We don’t like to think about it but that’s true, that’s the way our society operates. Or, to just say, “This is too difficult and I’m not going to do anything.” Inaction is what we’ve all been trained to do in these cases. And so thinking through in advance some of the things that you can do, resources you can draw upon. And even just the way that if you need a minute, what sentence you’re going to say, to tell someone that you need some time to think this through, and that you’re going to go explore some options. And to know in advance, who am I going to ask? It should not be your school Title IX coordinator, it should not be the people who you’ve been taught on your campus are the ones that can answer these questions. And the reason for that is because they have conflicting roles, it’s a conflict of interest. All of these organizations on campus are also trying to protect the university. And so they’re going to be thinking about things, like, what causes liability in the classroom? which isn’t necessarily what’s best for survivors. And so if you’re thinking about who you should ask on campus, the people you should ask are the victim advocates. It really is, if you have campus victim advocates, or even community victim advocates that you can reach out to, that is where I would start because they’re the true experts on sexual violence, as are the survivors themselves. When you’re sort of in a lurch you can turn to your students and say, “You don’t have to have an answer to this question. But in case you do, do you know what you need? Do you know what exactly what you’re looking for? And again, if you don’t know, we can figure it out together. And I can come to you with a lot of options.” One thing that campus victim advocates do all the time is they create options where survivors didn’t think there were any and so it’s normal for survivors to not know what they want, and to not know what’s available, especially if most of the time when they’ve been asking for help, they haven’t been getting it, that lowers their expectations over and over. This is the subject of my dissertation. But to be able to say, “I know where I’m going to go. And I’m going to take your input because I recognize who the true experts on sexual violence are on this campus,” is a really good place to start. Most professors are not experts on issues of sexual violence. And it can be really uncomfortable for us when we’re supposed to be the keepers of knowledge to say to our students, “I don’t know something,” or, “I’ve made a mistake.” But those are things you should get really, really comfortable with. Because to do anything else, to try to maintain your power in the classroom, to try to make yourself look like the all-knower or whatever it is, can be really damaging. And so practice, get comfortable in your head with how you’re going to say to a survivor, “I really messed up,” and “I am so sorry.” Or if something happens in your classroom, we haven’t talked about this very much, but sometimes the problem is not you. The problem is other students were making victim-blaming comments or something like that in a class discussion. And professors often say, “I didn’t know how to handle that situation.” That’s an okay response. It is okay, when that’s happening, to interrupt and say, “I don’t know how to handle this. I do not know how to handle this. And I’m worried that if this conversation continues, it could be really harmful. We’re going to take a break. I’m going to take a few minutes to collect my thoughts.” And maybe in some cases, even ending class early and then addressing it when you come back. You do have to address it if you do that, you can’t just move on and pretend it never happened that is so awkward, and it does send the message that you’re not comfortable talking about sexual violence, you’re not comfortable supporting survivors. But if you don’t know what to do, instead of just sort of making it up as you go, sometimes it is better to just say, “Actually, I’m going to seek an expert here.” And that’s really, really important. We are pretty lucky as professors, because on a lot of campuses, there are experts who are available and trained to help you again, it’s not going to be your Title IX coordinator, they are going to give you the basic legalistic spiel about the mandatory reporting policy and what is available. But if you reach out to the campus victim advocate and say, “This happened in my classroom, what do I do,” a lot of victim advocates will come to your next class, they will facilitate that discussion, you can have the expert in the room, you don’t have to be the one to do it if it’s making you uncomfortable. Victim advocates often can be requested to come into some of these spaces, if you’re holding an event or something that’s on campus sexual violence. They’re very busy, and they’re very under-resourced across the board, across the university. So you might not want to make a habit of bringing them into every discussion because that’s taking something away from survivors on the other end, but even to say, “Hey, for the last five minutes of class, we’re going to have a victim advocate come by and pass out some flyers and they’ll be here if you need to talk.” That’s something that a lot of them are very happy to do. And so we’re very, very lucky. We don’t have to do this on our own.

Rebecca: That’s a really good reminder, Nicole, for sure.

Nicole: It’s funny, right before this, I was working on my book manuscript and I was writing about how under-resourced victim advocates are. And one thing that was striking me is that they get kind of hidden away, that as much as faculty on a regular basis saying, “Hey, we want information about what to do,” very rarely do the victim advocates, especially without somebody there to, like, keep them in line, very rarely do we get to talk to them as faculty. We might get an email from them saying, “Hey, a student needs something,” and you’re very polite and professional back, one would hope. But we don’t actually think of them as experts on sexual violence who could come into our classroom or answer our questions, and they really are. And that actually is another thing you can do that every single one of us listening can do to support survivors on our campuses, every victim advocacy office in the country is under-resourced. And it’s not because universities lack the resources, but because there isn’t enough pressure to allocate them to victim advocacy. So something you could do now is say, “Hey, we really want another victim advocate, doesn’t matter how many you have, let’s add one more.” Or, “Let’s make sure that they have a space that works for them. Let’s make sure they’re in a place that’s comfortable that students can go to.” But think about ways that you can support the people who support victims.

Rebecca: So that’s a lot to think about.

Nicole: Yes. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: There’s a lot here. But we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

Nicole: I hope that everybody goes and makes some changes to their syllabus, looks up some crisis lines and things like that in your local area to add. That’s a really simple thing you can do today and it does not take a lot of energy or effort. So at least do that. I also hope that everybody thinks about, okay, as I was listening to the podcast, some things were a little close to home, or maybe that could be useful and think about integrating it into your classes. So that’s obvious, thinking about, how can I change my first day activities? How can I prepare for discussions that go awry? things like that. If you’re looking for some more specific examples, there are a lot more in the article that I wrote too, so you can go take a look at that as the thing that’s next. And actually, the entire issue of Teaching Sociology that it came out in, is about teaching issues of sex and sexuality. So the whole thing is great, and you can read the whole thing. But in terms of supporting survivors themselves, I’m going to harp again, on that now is a really politically important moment to change the federal policy, to change the rules about how survivors are supported. And under the Trump administration, a lot of support for survivors were rolled back. And a lot of things happened that made it more difficult for people to support survivors in the way that they need. And so this is a really, really great time to, again, contact your representatives. Title IX is great. It’s what we have. And so it’s better than nothing to have the federal government coming in and saying, “We want you to take care of sexual assault survivors in this way.” But it’s not very specific. It’s a federal regulation so the guidance is more of recommendations rather than laws, it all gets adjudicated in the courts, it’s not a very strong piece of legislation, the way that it’s being enacted. So something that a lot of advocates are pushing for right now is to get Congress to pass a more comprehensive set of rules and regulations about how to protect survivors on campus. And that would be really nice because it can also sidestep some of these uncomfortable conversations that have come up in the past year, some things that the Trump administration did that were huge steps backward and are moving us in the wrong direction. So for example, you probably haven’t heard of this one, but under the Trump administration, there is a way for perpetrators of sexual assault to remove their confessions from evidence and Title IX cases. That is currently the regulation, even if a perpetrator has confessed to what they have done, there are ways for them to take that confession back. And so stuff like that is really difficult to walk around to some degree, the Biden administration could just say, “We’re not going to keep it,” but then the next president could put it right back in place. It’s very unstable and survivors are really depending on elections for support. So one thing you can do is go to your legislators and say, “It’s really past time to pass reforms for campus sexual assault, and here’s some organizations you should look to, like End Rape on Campus and Know Your IX.” Make some noise on your campus, go to your campus offices and say that you care. If you talk about this with other faculty, the more names that are on the petition saying that you want a space at the table that you want to change something specific, the better. And, yeah, it’s a reminder, a lot of the things that your school is doing and saying is the law, like mandatory reporting, is not the law. You don’t have to be on a campus that does mandatory reporting. It’s not required. And so if stuff like that bothers you, let your campus know.

Rebecca: Well, thank you, Nicole, for a really informative conversation. And I hope that many faculty start thinking about these things in a different way than they have in the past.

Nicole: Yeah, thank you for having me and I hope this was useful.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

200. Teaching for the Public Good

When designing a course, faculty and instructional designers often focus on the course as a discrete entity without considering its role in the institution and society. In this episode, Robin DeRosa joins us to discuss how our classes and institutions can help to support broader social objectives.  Robin is the Director of the Open Learning and Teaching Collaborative at Plymouth State University, Robin had long been an editor of Hybrid Pedagogy and is a co-founder of the Open Pedagogy Notebook. She has also published on a wide variety of topics related to higher education, including open pedagogy, remote learning, and value-centered instruction planning.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: When designing a course, faculty and instructional designers often focus on the course as a discrete entity without considering its role in the institution and society. In this episode, we examine how our classes and institutions can help to support broader social objectives.

[MUSIC]

John: Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer.

Rebecca: Together, we run the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at the State University of New York at Oswego.

[MUSIC]

John: Our guest today is Robin DeRosa, the Director of the Open Learning and Teaching Collaborative at Plymouth State University. Robin had long been an editor of Hybrid Pedagogy and is a co-founder of the Open Pedagogy notebook. She has also published on a wide variety of topics related to higher education, including open pedagogy, remote learning, and value-centered instruction planning. Welcome back, Robin.

Robin: Thanks, you guys. I’m so happy to be here.

Rebecca: We’re excited to talk to you again.

John: The last time it was one of our early podcasts and it was in person and that was so much nicer. But we’re happy to see you here.

Robin: It was amazing too, because you guys have really fancy equipment, headphones, microphones. And I still periodically take out those photos of myself recording that podcast because I felt like such a big cheese.

Rebecca: We had such good time.

John: We’ve used that in several presentations, because we don’t have that many pictures of people doing it and it was because you suggested “Let’s get a photo.” You mean most people aren’t like, “Oh, take a picture of me with my fancy headphones on.” And shortly after that, if you remember when we recorded it, it was next to a cafe where there was a cart moving by that sounded like a train going by. And it was a blender, and it was a coffee grinder, and it was a toilet flushing. We moved to a new location, which was an old recording studio, shortly after that, which is really confined and crowded and cramped. So it wasn’t really the most conducive place to take photos. And for some reason, since March, we haven’t actually talked to anybody in person, including each other.

Robin: I wonder why. I, just, who knows?

Rebecca: It’s a weird thing, it’s just a weird thing. But today’s teas are…

Robin: My tea is a very standard and reliable honey chamomile. So if I do doze off in the middle of the podcast, it will be because I’m so relaxed from this very sleepy tea.

Rebecca: We all need a little relaxation these days.

Robin: That’s right.

John: And I’m drinking a ginger peach green tea.

Rebecca: Oh, a standard. I’ve got golden monkey today, because I was looking forward to talking to Robin. So, brought out the fancy stuff.

John: And that is her favorite tea for some of our most favorite guests.

Rebecca: So we invited you here today to talk a little bit about your recent article, “Never forget: your course is not only yours.” And in this article, you talk about course and curriculum development, often starting with course content or course structure without really the consideration of the larger role the course plays in the institution and the larger role the institution plays in society. So, can you first start by sharing the role institutions do play in doing the work of the public good?

Robin: Yeah, that’s a nut of a question because I feel like if we could do a better job in public higher ed, of answering that question, just even internally, we would be in a much stronger position to advocate for our needs in sustaining our institutions. So I’ve really been spending time recently trying to think about not taking the definition of an institution for granted and not thinking about it, I mean, certainly not now post COVID, as a collection of buildings. But what is the work of the institution? We know maybe what the work is of a course. What is exactly the work of an institution? Is it just to graduate and credential people? I think probably not. There’s cheaper and easier ways to get a credential, that’s for sure. So I’m really thinking that the way we understand publics, it’s hard to understand publics without thinking about institutions. Because you have to, in some ways, imagine a collective. A public has to have some kind of shape or structure to it. It’s different than just a mess or swarm of people. It’s got some kind of architecture. And the only way for me to imagine that is to think about public institutions. I think that is where our public’s in here. That’s what a public is. It’s the collection of public institutions that are created to serve. So if that’s the case, I think, as a public institution, I might think about something like public health care, for example. I think, “Okay, not only what do we need to serve the individual student, who we sometimes call the consumer now.” I was in a situation earlier where I heard somebody using that name interchangeably with students. And that is because we do think of college in many ways as a consumer good. Are you going to get your value out of college? And here’s the ROI that college will deliver through the college earnings premium, you’ll make 145% more money. And that’s all true, and it’s fine. But I’m interested in that other corollary question, which is, “What value do institutions deliver to publics beyond the individual consumers or students who attend?” It was interesting to me to think about this during a public health crisis because lots of colleges were involved in vaccinations. And then lots of colleges weren’t. The question to me about, like, “Does a college play a role in public health?” So we know from some of the economic research about colleges, that public colleges, and John, you were actually just sort of, I knew the body of literature you were citing offhand as we were chatting before the show, we’re talking about folks like Philip Trostel, and others who have done studies to kind of demonstrate the value of public institutions to the public good. And that includes things like public colleges delivering longevity, happier marriages, better cognitive functioning to children, regional wage increases whether or not a person goes to college. So I started thinking, like, we can talk about the value of public institutions. But how often do faculty and instructional designers think about any of those things when they’re on the ground doing their actual work? And could we get a more powerful amplification of these contributions we’re making to the public good if we actually design intentionally for that piece of the work? So we’re not just serving our students with their particular learning outcomes. But we’re trying to think about building a course on organic chemistry that also pays attention to these larger ways that the institution is serving, whether it be the region, the state, the nation, or globally. So it’s really a question of how we shift instructional design, to ask about institutional mission and incorporate that into design practices.

Rebecca: One of the ideas that you brought up in your article was this idea of sites of practice, which I really latched on to. Because it moved away from thinking about an institution as something that’s just completely not touchable to something that we help create and participate in and help evolve. So can you talk a little bit about what you mean by sites of practice?

Robin: Yeah, and Lord knows, I often feel like my own institution is untouchable, and I direct faculty development, so to a certain degree, I have a fairly significant administrative job. But I still often feel like it doesn’t matter what I do, the institution is a behemoth that is fully disconnected from anything I do on the ground. That may actually be the case. But I’m trying to think of a new model for defining institutions that come less from some nebulous stratosphere, or some board of trustees or administrative board. And instead, to think, this actually comes from some of my work in English in the early days with critical theory, and God knows, probably even some critical race theory. So feel free to just shut me down now, just cancel me right now. But I think that it’s in the practice, it’s in the being and the doing that we actually create the shape of who we are as an institution. And sometimes you can see this because you’ll, for example, look at some web PR, or hear a tour guide for your institution and realize, like, “Gosh, that really doesn’t, doesn’t seem to be what we really are.” So you can recognize that the thing you really are is a thing and you know it and you know it because you’re working in it. And I guess the hope I have is that, if we can get faculty and staff to talk more in a meta way, or intentionally, actually, about the practices that we’re using, and how we think they set the tone for who we are as an institution, that will be the institution, like it or not. Nobody has the power to make the institution what it isn’t. And so if through the work, if you can make the work visible, and you can talk about the work in intelligent ways, I think that does have the ability to shape what the institution is actually capable of. I think one of the larger problems, though, is like, except maybe in, like, committee work. In general, we don’t have these conversations as academics, and we’re very content focused, and we’re very focused on our majors, perhaps. And then I think staff have an even harder problem, which is they are generally really required to stay in their swim lanes, they don’t enjoy the freedom to ask questions about how their daily work and their tasks could be shifted to create a different shape. They’re just sort of told, “Here’s what needs to be accomplished.” And I think we’re really kind of failing to get the impact that we could be getting out of our public institutions by not letting faculty and staff have more conversations about how their daily work could do more for how the institution serves its publics.

John: What are some specific things that individual faculty members might be able to do to help shift the institution a little bit, sort of like shifting an ocean liner, perhaps, but shifting it in a direction that may be more positive? What are some individual tasks, perhaps, or individual activities that you can think of that faculty might be able to undertake?

Robin: Well, I think first, and this is some work that is really heavily influenced by my colleague, Martha Bertus. And then our colleagues, Sean Michael Morris, and Jesse Stommel, particularly Sean Michael Morris, who’s done a lot of writing recently about what he calls critical instructional design, which comes out of the world of critical digital pedagogy. But really, where they started in asking questions about how to rethink instructional design was to ask questions, instead of a sort of classic, say, backwards design model where you’re starting with learning outcomes and mapping those two activities, and then mapping those activities to assessments, and it’s all very predetermined. There’s a lot more co-learning happening, where students are welcomed into the process of learning design, and they’re encouraged to critically notice the learning environment that they are part of, so that when you talk about, “We teach our students learn how to learn,” it gives some teeth to that, because you’re making the learning process visible, you’re engaging them in conversations about the learning process. And that design just becomes something that you can now also discuss and focus on. So I think, similarly here, I’m suggesting that we take kind of a critical stance, and sometimes that word can be a little bit intimidating, but I think it really means intentional or thoughtful in this regard. So that instead of just jumping to your content, you’re instead asking questions about, “What kind of scholar do I want my students to emerge from this class like? What are the qualities of scholarship that I hope that they’re invested with?” It’s about asking, “What role you hope the work that they do in your course will do in the wider world? And therefore, what role you think the academy is playing?” Is it just job training for the future? Which is certainly one valid possibility. But they’re also, for example, if you teach, we have a very significant number of health majors. It’s a very popular field right now, especially in regional colleges and community colleges. We’re seeing lots of people interested in healthcare, because it’s a growing field. And there’s jobs and there’s need, but also to see that during a global pandemic, there’s lots of students interested in studying health. I think part of the question is, “Okay, what do we think the role is of a public university during a global pandemic? How should it be behaving? What messaging should it be putting out? How should it be related to public health messages?” Our local hospital was putting out lots of public health messages, they did a video every week. And I wondered, why wouldn’t that be the kind of thing that a university health program or nursing program wouldn’t also be involved in? So public health, I think, is a really interesting place to start. But we can think about other things that have been in the news lately, things like housing and food insecurity with social work majors or people who are studying economics, for example, or even studying nutrition. There are some very rich things going on in the world that historians can contribute to at the moment, if you have been watching the news. So I think one of the questions I have is, I’m concerned when I see our public institutions shrinking from those responsibilities to be leaders in opening public debate and amplifying public knowledge in issues that are really important for sustainable healthy communities. And right now, in New Hampshire, we’ve got legislation, it just became law, that says educators can no longer discuss divisive concepts in the classroom. And there are a whole series of examples that come out of this fear mongering around critical race theory. It took me at least three years of graduate school to be able to really explain critical race theory, like I’m pretty sure these people do not mean critical race theory when they say critical race theory. But I’m concerned about public institutions that aren’t stepping up to explain why that legislation is so problematic. So I guess what I’m interested in is, how can faculty and staff in their daily work, start moving the institution into more public relationships on issues the public clearly needs education about? And I don’t mean explaining to uneducated people what’s right, I mean, education in its best sense, which is informed debate, civil discourse, history, science, right. Like the kinds of things that we can bring into the marketplace of ideas and share. But I see now a shrinking of public institutions from those responsibilities, fear that legislators are going to rescind even more public funding if you get perceived as partisan or ideological and those things concern me. I think there’s a, just like public healthcare and public transportation have roles in societies, so do public institutions of higher education. But my question for most people now is, “What role does the public university in your town play?” I don’t know that people could tell you beyond, “Oh, that’s where kids go to college.” That’s important. But, “What else are you there for?” is the question I would ask.

John: Would a starting point be expanding community based service learning type activities, where students directly engage with some of the problems of the community by working with community members?

Robin: I think so. I think service learning is a great example of that. Service learning, of course, is like, you know, flawed and difficult for a whole bunch of reasons as well. But really, what in general, you’re getting out there, I think, is the idea of just a more porous boundary between the public and the academy. And in its best sense, a public academy would really be interested in not just educating the public, but educating the public for the public. So I get a little bit concerned when I see all of our interest being in how to create students who are more marketable for competing against each other for jobs. Like I get that, our students need jobs. I mean, many of my students are Pell-eligible poor students, and they, especially with the debt load they’re carrying in New Hampshire, highest in the nation, they need jobs after they graduate. But on the other hand, there’s other ways to be thinking about creating economically sustainable communities, besides just, “You will be better than everybody else in this field. And so you’ll kick their asses and get the job.” I’m thinking more about, “Can public institutions in areas also be creating programs and things that ultimately, like, are the jobs that the students are going to be inhabiting?” And it’s one of the reasons I like the community college model. An example of this, I think, is, I can’t remember what state it was, but they were allowing people to register to vote at their primary care physician’s office when they went in for their yearly physicals. So one of the questions they were asked is, “Are you registered to vote? No. Would you like us to do that for you right now, like, we can do it.” This idea of, like, integrated care for the public good creating voting citizens and make sure they’re healthy and that they’re educated and they have childcare. My dream of a true community college would be a place where all those services existed together. But those aren’t just like welfare, social services, right? These are social services that give back, there’s return. So I think there’s a lot more potential if institutions could, public institutions in particular, could say, “You know what, we’re okay saying that we have a stake in the public good.” Like, “We are okay saying, it’s on us to make this region/state stronger, healthier, economically viable, equitable.” Right now, I don’t know that I’m seeing our institutions take those positions, we’re very focused on individual consumer success.

Rebecca: Seems like one of the key pieces to that puzzle is treating the local community that you’re situated in, as an expert on the local community, so that there’s some contributions to the conversations and some seeds to what those conversations should even be. Rather than making those decisions and plopping them on to a community because that tends not to work. That’s why we have institutions on hills and things, right, and there’s that divide.

Robin: College on a hill. That’s exactly right. And obviously, none of what I’m saying here is new in terms of pedagogy, and to think about in terms of somebody like Freire, a sort of talking about the revolution cannot be taught by someone external to the revolutionary community. So you are growing things from inside. And I think that’s absolutely true. And I think a piece of that, that hit me with instructional design during COVID, particularly, is as people were moving remote and moving online, you’re seeing much more outsourcing to things like edtech products to assure quality and remote delivery, for example. And there are a million problems with this, for example, like lots of people will tell you that they don’t believe in for-profit, higher education. Even middle-of-the-road people will say, “Yeah, institutions should not be for profit, and they do scam students.” But we have no problem with massive for-profit industries, right in the center of our public institutions, right? And I’m talking about things like the textbook conglomerates, I’m talking about things like edtech corporations that run Canvas or whatever, I’m talking about our dining services ancillaries that keep our public institutions running. And I think we saw in times of crisis, a real falling into the pitch, that some external thing could save us. You can hire a consultant, like Huron, and pay them $700,000 and they’ll tell you what’s wrong with your institution. And you can get an OPM to manage your new online thing and that’ll be great. But I just don’t think this is how publics get built. You cannot serve the public good, unless the public is somehow in that sustainability loop. So it really is about building an institution that’s much more integrated with the world outside. The thing is, faculty are pretty good at this, like faculty now are starting to get really interested in this kind of work. They’re doing project-based work. They’re doing open education, they’re interested in connected learning. But we don’t talk about that institutionally. And we don’t necessarily integrate it with our strategic plans. We don’t necessarily have coherence from one class or section to another. My question is, we might need to start making sure faculty have the vocabulary and education to think more intentionally about what they’re doing in their classes, and how it really is affecting what their institution could be. And if they can talk to each other and we can develop some synergies around that I think we could potentially be, I’m still fairly cynical at this point because so many things are going in the wrong direction in public higher ed, but I do think we actually have the skill in our faculty, staff, particularly staff, I’ll say, but our designers, to do this work. But coordinating it is hard. And we throw a lot of bad ideas after bad ideas that keep us away from what I think is a pure mission, which is really to focus on how we work with students in our communities.

Rebecca: One of the things that we often think about is that power sits with administration. And you’re really talking about the idea that an institution is really about the work that’s being done and who’s doing it. And so we’ve talked a bit about faculty, but I’m wondering if we can talk a little bit about both staff and students and their role in creating an institution and also steering an institution. Students are actually a key to all of this. And it certainly has been woven into our conversation here, but not maybe pulled out explicitly. But we often don’t think of that because we think of them as being consumers, or that’s how the conversation goes, rather than they are the community that we’re hoping to serve, because they’re the ones that bring the community forward. They are the ones who will be leading our community.

Robin: And we so undo ourselves by basically training students into a compliance model, which is so much of K12, and higher education. And so when you do open up learning opportunities that are really co-developed with students, or that are very learner driven, you do get pushback from students who are like, “That’s not what I’m paying you for, I’m paying for you to teach me something and I need to get a job.” And I understand that, like, what other response would there be given how we’ve set up the system? But I think that that’s not about blaming students, that’s about understanding. We get what we paid for, so to speak. We designed that. And that’s a designed response. And so it’s going to take some intentional design to create a students-as-partners model. Five years ago, or whatever, we’d say, “Oh, I’m so student-centered.” And we would mean like, “We have class discussion, right? I don’t just lecture the whole time.” I think now we’ve graduated past that where people understand running a classroom where students have agency to speak and ask critical questions and stuff. But now it’s probably time, at least in some of their classes, to say, “You really need to learn to curate materials, you can’t just study what I give you, you also have to learn to figure out what we need to study to get where we need to go.” I also believe that if I’m trying to diversify my curriculum, part of the way I need to do that is to understand that new voices and new perspectives are going to have more to offer than I can offer all on my own so I’m going to need to involve those students. So we need to start thinking about our instructional design as a way of creating the kinds of citizens/members of the knowledge commons that we hope will take our culture to its next iteration. And I think we’re, lots of teaching and learning centers are really good now at helping people figure out activities. I mean, this is kind of what we built open pedagogy.org for, it’s really a website about activities that see students as contributors to the knowledge commons, not just consumers. Staff is another question. I actually think we’re further behind on staff than we are with students because again, that kind of student-centered thing propelled us into the beginnings of some of those critical questions about students and their agency and learner-centered classrooms. But staff, I think, we do a pretty lousy job of understanding the role that staff play in academia. And I don’t just mean in, like, the university operations, but I mean in, like, building a world of knowledge, I just think we could do a lot more. So for example, in the office that I run now, and it makes it sound like such a busy center, there’s four of us, I should specify, we could easily have 40 of us, and it would be amazing. But the four people are here, we have very different jobs. And this sort of faculty development director, someone else directs the student major that lives in our program. Another person is basically a lead instructional designer, and somebody else is more of an administrative assistant and advisor. We are all cross trained on every piece of that puzzle. Every single one of us participates in teaching, like actually teaching, we all do advising, we all do some admin, we all know every aspect. And it doesn’t mean we don’t have our expertise and we definitely have our jobs. But we talked so much about treating the student holistically, but we still really insist on staff staying in their place. I know that sounds awful but I really think that’s how many staff are treated. I don’t think you can have a holistic approach to students without relaxing the boundaries between people, especially people in team-based settings. So I think faculty have contributed to kind of rarifying the academic space a little bit. And I just don’t think, as somebody who comes out of interdisciplinary studies, we’re very interested in transdisciplinarity, the outside world does not have disciplines, right, they just have things. And I think staff can really help us translate some of the academic work of the academy, because staff work often looks more like the community work that we’re doing outside of the college. So there’s some really rich opportunities there to merge teaching with staff operations, and get students partnering more with staff, and staff working more on projects, and staff helping more in classrooms, and faculty, for God’s sake, understanding more about financial aid, for example, the Bursar’s office, the Registrar, it’s just a win-win. So I think a lot of what I’m talking about when I’m trying to think about instructional design is just, let’s be more intentional about designing an integrated university, wherever you are. So if what you do is make courses, it’s time to think about how your course functions with the student life office and the diversity and equity office and the food pantry. And the same thing for staff to be invited in, I think, to those academic experiences.

Rebecca: One of the things that struck me about the subtitle of your article, “The course is not only yours,” is part of what we’ve been talking about is this bigger kind of public knowledge, which is completely tied to all our earlier work about OER’s and open pedagogy. And I was just hoping you might talk a little bit about how those ideas of access tied to this bigger idea that you’re describing here.

Robin: When I first started my work in Open, I was obviously interested in the access issues about the high cost of textbooks and the really significant social justice issue that inheres in what seems like a really stupid issue. But I moved from that to being much more interested in the pedagogy just because I was teaching English and having after 15, 20 years in the classroom, having amazing experiences once I started working with students on creating learning materials and doing non-disposable assignments, and it just really energized students to work more authentically. But I think the next phase of my development at Open was really about thinking like, “Okay, so what about this is public work?” Because there’s a difference, I think, between open and public, and I think open is kind of a neutral word in the sense that I don’t know that it’s always good. I mean, I definitely know it’s not always good. I always think, open is not the opposite of private, private things can be great. And sometimes open things can be really abusive. Tara Robertson has written about this. And it really was like an epiphany for me when I read her piece on this, but it was about a lesbian, and maybe this is, like, not good for your G-rated podcast, so you could edit me out, but a lesbian porn magazine from the whatever 70’s, I think 80’s, called On Our Backs, and it was a print magazine, very feminist magazine. For very obvious reasons, women’s studies scholars are really interested in that work, and they digitized the collection and made it open. What’s interesting, though, is a lot of those women are alive and they were taking those photographs for a very select group of subscribers in a print journal. And there’s some really interesting questions I think about power and consent and what it means. And obviously there’s scholarly value to having those resources open, I don’t dispute that. But I would not argue that it’s a particularly feminist move or a move with social justice at its core. It’s not enough to just make things free and open all the time, we have to really think about what makes our public life healthier for all of us, and I don’t mean physically healthier, but better for all of us. And when I think about better, I think I’ve kind of landed mostly on the question of equity. Because it’s not really about incredible quality of life for certain people, it’s really about, how can we get the best outcomes for the widest and most diverse group of people? And for that, you can’t just think about openly licensing materials, you have to think about the values that are pushing you and you have to think about what the role is of the institution that you’re working in. And that became my next iteration. I still think open pedagogy and OER and open licenses are really big tools for doing a lot of this work, but I think the work is bigger.

John: So it involves taking, not just creating things for public consumption, but creating things that actually are useful for society as a whole. Would that be a good way of thinking about it?

Robin: I think so. My friend, Jim Grimm is an economist, and he describes it in a way that I find very, very helpful. He’s talking about a concept that you probably know the tragedy of the commons, and the sort of debunked idea at this point that you can never have common pool resources, because the second you open the pasture for anybody to graze, it’s going to get overgrazed and destroyed by the richest guy with the biggest cows or whatever, and then you’re done. So don’t even try. But Jim’s point is that commons is not a set of resources. A commons is not a meadow, it’s not a place. The way he says it is that the commons is a verb. It’s a series of agreements that people make about decisions that they’re going to make collectively, in order to get outcomes that work for everybody. I would say that verb, the verb of commons-ing is what we should do in public institutions. That’s the place for that kind of verbing, where we don’t overgraze our meadows, just because that guy’s going to get a good job out of it. We’re thinking more broadly about preserving an ecosystem where we can continue to learn and grow and increase our quality of life. So the idea of commons being a verb has been very helpful to me in moving from the focus in OER, the artifacts, to focusing instead on the practices that, and the collaborations that, keep us working together in sync.

Rebecca: Speaking of tools, we just talked about OER and open licensing as a tool to do some of this work. You’ve also worked on the ACE framework, that also seems like a really important tool for this work. Can you talk just a little bit about that and introduce folks to that tool?

Robin: Yeah, the ACE framework was sort of the first step that Martha and I took into rethinking instructional design. And it was a COVID designed tool, but more broadly than COVID, it’s really for teaching during a time of crisis. So I’ve talked about ACE, sometimes with faculty in California who are dealing with wildfires that have displaced their whole student body from working on campus, for example, or other issues like that. So I think it’s kind of adaptable. But ACE stands for adaptability, connection, and equity. And basically, we designed it to suggest that during a highly misnamed COVID pivot, which makes it sound like it was so delicate and beautiful when we all pirouetted into remote learning…

Rebecca: …and there were definitely jazz hands involved.

Robin: Oh, yeah. Meanwhile, authentically, people were dying, and people’s families were not having enough to eat, just, really. So what we wanted to do was to say, okay, it’s not going to be about Zoom. If this is about Zoom, it is really impossible to imagine that you would not completely alienate your student body. So we designed a framework to basically say, of course, you’re going to probably use some Zoom, and we will definitely support you in learning whatever new tools and technologies you need. But before that, let’s think intentionally about the realities that our students are going to be encountering, and the realities that we are going to be encountering, as we teach.

Rebecca: Yeah!

Robin: Exactly. With our babies on our laps, and whatever else, Rebecca. So the key to the ACE is really that very idea. It has practices, lots of practices, we get very concrete and specific, you know, we’re not just like, “You should care about people,” like, they’ll tell you what to try and how to do it. And it has activities and it has examples, but it’s really saying, start with your values. Start with a framework. Don’t just jump to the tech tool as particularly one that’s sold to you by a for profit company that’s going to give it to you for free for a year, so that you will build up a dependence on it and need it later. Like, there’s nefarious stuff going on. Let’s start by asking, “What do your students need during this time of crisis? What do your courses need in order to adapt?” And then we’ll figure out that other stuff once we’ve asked using our expertise as humans and faculty, not just listening to vendors, and then we can make better decisions. And that pivot had to happen so quickly that it was an obvious pitfall that we were just going to take the first thing that was put in front of us, and that that was going to be considered a solution. The reality is there was going to be no solution to teaching and learning during COVID. So you better have a robust framework, so that you can keep coping for the 18 months that you’re going to be doing this. And let’s hope it’s not, you know, another 18 months.

Rebecca: And there will continue to be crises that follow us. It’s not the same, but we have students who have been traumatized, we have faculty and staff who have been traumatized.

Robin: And so many students who had the worst parts of COVID, especially where I was, a quarter of our students got COVID at Plymouth State. But we didn’t have a ton of illness but we had huge economic fallout, poverty immediately in much of our student body. But what I heard from my most vulnerable students was, “Yeah, this is bad, but it’s been this bad for a long time, I actually feel better, because now people are paying attention. The fact that people care now that I can’t afford my meals, the fact that people see that I don’t have Wifi at home, the fact that you’re thinking about how to loan me a laptop.” So I think the wake up call was really less for the people who are suffering the worst and it was more for the people who had been lucky enough not to be suffering all along.

John: And to be able to ignore the suffering that was going on because it was hidden on our institutions.

Robin: Exactly. And to think, “Hey, I’m an early americanist, it’s not really my gig, housing insecurity is not really my gig.” You know what? It is your gig because 10% of your class is housing insecure, or even homeless right now. So how do you expect them to care about the Haitian Revolution or whatever? So there’s no silver lining to COVID. But it was a helpful wake up call. And I think most people who use the ACE framework both at Plymouth State and in other places, by the time they really had engaged with the framework, they realized, “Oh, yeah, I mean, this is for COVID, but it’s also for anybody who might teach human beings.” Because human beings tend to have challenges and traumas, you’re not going to go through 18 years of schooling, and not have significant challenges and traumas somewhere along the way, almost everybody. So I think it’s good if we build that into how we approach our design.

Rebecca: Although there’s still a lot of challenges, I still feel very hopeful. And I think a lot of the things that you’ve been talking about Robin, although maybe come out of some frustration, I think are a hopeful look at the way that the future can be and the way that we can all contribute to that.

Robin: We had a pretty rich last three weeks in faculty development at Plymouth, we’re running a bunch of different cohorts. And, I mean, I come out of these things and I’m like, “These people are amazing!” We have a staff learning community, and then a mixed faculty and staff learning community. And we, just like you guys, we have a beautiful, beautiful campus, and our students are fantastic. So there isn’t anything here that shouldn’t be working. It’s the same thing we were talking about earlier too. The return on investment and public higher ed, like it’s a no brainer. So it makes it more frustrating, on the one hand, because you do see how much potential there is. But on the other hand, it doesn’t seem like a pipe dream. Just like it doesn’t seem like a pipe dream to vaccinate with a vaccine that’s almost 100% effective. Like, “Hey, guys, you really could make this go away if you wanted to.” So there’s a lot of political will that we’ve got to work on. But the tools are within our reach for sure.

John: So we always end with the question, what’s next?

Robin: So two things are next. The first is I’m going to take a vacation to Monhegan Island, and it’s an island off the coast of Maine and my favorite place on earth. And I had to learn how to put my vacation days requests into the online system that we have. I had never done it before. Even though I’ve had this job for two and a half years. So I was like okay, that’s a sign I need a vacation. So the next thing that’s happening is a break. And I do just want to say to all my colleagues, like, you’ve got to find some rest, because I’ve never seen people pushed to the breaking point like we all have been over the last bunch of months. I’m thankful for my dogs during the pandemic. I have one on my lap right now and she just woke up for the tail end of the podcast so what great timing. But I think after that my interest is probably in working on a new initiative with Martha, she’s calling it now is really in some ways her baby, but it’s called Design Forward. We’re working on it in relationship with John and Jesse and some of the hybrid ped folks. And we’re really interested in seeing where critical instructional design could go in terms of, I think, building a more hopeful and sustainable vision for the future of higher ed. So we’re going to be working on that, particularly internally at Plymouth State but I think maybe some of these partnerships with the hybrid ped folks will allow us to do some nice sharing more broadly as well, with those materials that we’re working on.

Rebecca: Enjoy your rest, well deserved rest.

Robin: Thank you. I definitely intend to even though I have to leave my dogs at home, which just seems terrible. But other than that, I’m really looking forward to it.

Rebecca: We’ll be looking forward to seeing your next adventure come out as it starts being shared out as well.

John: Thank you. It’s always great talking to you. And you’ve inspired a lot of us to try a lot of new things with open education, open pedagogy, and so much more.

Robin: Well, thanks for having me and a shout out to, not just you guys, but really all my SUNY friends because there’s many of your campuses that have been partners with me in a lot of the work especially in OER, so it’s great to see you guys

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca: You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]

199. Revisiting Diverse Classrooms

As diversity and inclusion initiatives mature, evaluation and improvement are prioritized. In this episode, Melina Ivanchikova and Matt Ouelett join us to discuss how one such program has evolved. Matt is the Founding Executive Director at Cornell University’s Center for Teaching Innovation. Melina is the Associate Director for inclusive Teaching in the Center. They developed Cornell’s EdX MOOC on Teaching and Learning in the Diverse Classroom.

Shownotes

Transcript

John:
As diversity and inclusion initiatives mature, evaluation and improvement are prioritized. In this episode, we discuss how one such program has evolved.

[MUSIC]

John:
Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning.

Rebecca:
This podcast series is hosted by John Kane, an economist…

John:
…and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer.

Rebecca:
Together, we run the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at the State University of New York at Oswego.

[MUSIC]

Rebecca:
Our guests today are Melina Ivanchikova and Matt Ouelett. Matt is the Founding Executive Director at Cornell University’s Center for Teaching Innovation. Melina is the Associate Director for inclusive Teaching in the center. Welcome back.

Mathew:
Thank you. Delighted to join you again.

Melina:
It’s great to be here.

John:
It’s good to talk to you again. This is overdue. We had planned to talk to you after we had taken a group of people through the Inclusive Teaching MOOC that we’ll be talking about, and then this pandemic intervened, and we didn’t quite get to that. So I’m glad we’re finally able to schedule this. Our teas today are:

Mathew:
I’m personally not drinking anything right now. But if I was, I’d be drinking something in the family of Earl Grey. I like a black tea.

Melina:
It’s definitely the Earl Grey time of day,.I’m just drinking water, because of the heat.

Rebecca:
90 degree weather.

Melina:
I want to hold up a tea that Matt occasionally brings for us at staff meetings, which is a gift. You put this little bulb into hot water and it opens up slowly into a flower and has this beautiful aroma to it, and everybody delights in it. So it just causes this moment of group joy. But Matt will know what the name of that tea is.

Mathew:
It’s a green tea, I think it’s sometimes referred to as a lotus bloom. So, thank you, Melina, that’s really kind of you to mention that.

Rebecca:
And I have sa easonally inappropriate Christmas tea. [LAUGHTER]

Melina:
That sounds good.

Rebecca:
I was looking for a little spice.

Melina:
Spices are cooling.

John:
I also have a seasonally inappropriate spring cherry green tea.

Mathew:
They both sound delicious.

MELIN: I wish we could be in the same room together.

Rebecca:
and tea testing. [LAUGHTER]

Melina:
Exactly.

Rebecca:
We have all the teas. [LAUGHTER]

John:
In our conference room, we have hundreds of teas. If you’re ever up on campus, we’re happy to share some with you. In an earlier podcast, we talked to you about the Teaching and Learning in the Diverse Classroom MOOC that you were developing at Cornell and were to release shortly. We had agreed to discuss this after we had a cohort of our faculty go through it. But we had a few other things intervene, including a global pandemic, and we’ve actually had three cohorts go through it. And we’d like to talk to you about the MOOC, and, in general, how it’s gone and where it’s going. But because it’s been a while since we’ve talked about this, could you provide a little bit of background on the origin of this MOOC?

Mathew:
in 2017, when the Center for Teaching innovation was first formed, we were trying to discern strategic projects that were of interest to our selves, but also serve the common good sort of attach themselves to initiatives that were campus wide. And Melina and I gained the support of senior academic leaders to do a course for faculty on campus related to teaching inclusively. So initially, the genesis of this idea was a professional faculty development experience on campus. And then the more that we got sort of embedded in the project, it became really clear to us that it could also answer another strong desire that we had, which was to contribute something broader, something that other institutions could take advantage of, as well. So that’s where the genesis of the idea have moved from an on campus resource to something on a platform like EdX. They’ve been great colleagues, and really wonderful to work with. But it galvanized us, I think, to think both more broadly, but also more specifically, and by more broadly, I mean, we were trying to think about what in the US context stands up to an international conversation around social justice, equity and diversity, and what is uniquely American, and also, for u,s what was uniquely Cornell’s context versus what might have resonance more broadly. So the process of putting it together was really driven locally. But our eye was always on trying to deliver something that might be of use to our colleagues more broadly. Melina, does that resonate for you?

Melina:
Yes, I think we were doing our best at the beginning, floating ideas, and pleasantly surprised when we got the confirmation from our senior leadership. They really thought it would be a good way, and a different way to provide an opportunity for people to engage with this kind of a course, either in groups together or asynchronously by oneself to have a private learning experience. But what appealed was an online asynchronous experience, that wasn’t going to be hours and hours. Early on, we had a lot of conversations about how to keep this to four or five weeks, something reasonable, for professional busy people.

Rebecca:
That length was one of the things I really appreciated about it in that it was a really nice concise, but very specific and detailed, all at the same time. So it really felt manageable. I know we had like three cohorts go through on our campus and I was unable to follow along during the first ones but I was following along right when the pandemic hit and found taking the course at that particular moment really poignant.

Mathew:
This was our experience on our campus too. I’ll be just very honest with you and say I felt honor would be served if Melina and I offered the course one time on campus and we had anybody take at it. It’s sort of like we delivered and after that it’s sort of up to the universe to find footing. But we have consistently had really excellent participation on campus. And I’ll let Melina speak more to the facts and figures. But even this spring, we’re literally just now completing a spring version of it on campus. And we’ve had a really lovely distribution between faculty, graduate students and staff… almost a third, a third, a third, again, and the interest doesn’t seem to be diminishing. And so, Rebecca, I can’t wait to hear more from you and John about what your experiences were with your cohorts. Because part of the joy of doing this is hearing back from campuses. Did it help? Did it galvanize and help facilitate some conversations that were context specific? And we really hope that we could provide the general introductory sort of framework, provide some useful resources in terms of exercises, but then really trust the process would unfold at a campus level in the way that it needed to. So that’s not a rhetorical question, I would love to hear more.

Melina:
To be honest, I was really hoping we could turn the conversation there, too. I really wanted to hear how your local learning communities went three is a significant number.

Mathew:
It’s fantastic. Yeah, that’s serious dedication, and a sign of positive response. So we’d love to hear more.

John:
Each time, I think, we had between 30 and 45 people attending, somewhere in that range. They were mostly faculty, but we did have a few administrators. And one thing that was really effective is one of the faculty members, in the third iteration of that, brought in a couple of her students. And that made it much more powerful. Because while the stories that are provided in the MOOC, in the videos from Cornell students and Cornell faculty are very well done and very moving, when a student gets up and talks about their own experiences and the challenges they face, as a local example of that it’s even more powerful. A number of people signed up for it on their own. But most of the people actually met every week, where we provided three or four times to let people come in at times that were convenient. We’d watch most or all of the videos, and then we discuss each of them. Sometimes we didn’t get through all of them, because the discussions went for a long time. Other times, we were able to get through most of them, and then people did the rest of the work on their own outside. But the discussions were really effective. And having people talk about it in person worked really well. And I think it helped ensure that everyone finished the MOOC, or that nearly everyone finished the MOOC. I know we had some people who didn’t do all the written work, but they at least attended most or all the sessions. And for us, at least, I think having the weekly meeting served as a nice commitment device, which tended to help maintain persistence. And it worked really well. And people have been asking about when we’re going to take another cohort through. And we’ll be planning to do that this fall. I think overall it was a tremendous success on campus. And we did have a few administrators attend, but not quite as many as you received. And we did have some staff members too. But it was mostly faculty.

Rebecca:
I think it was a really nice complement to some of the other work that we had already started doing, but just didn’t have the capacity to roll out the equivalent of that course on our own. And so it was really, really helpful to us. We had done a couple of reading groups related to racism previous to that. We have a really robust accessibility program on our campus and have been doing a lot of professional development around disability and accessibility. And so leveling up to inclusive pedagogy is really where we wanted to be going. [LAUGHTER] And this was a really nice structured way for us to get there. So we’ve been really thrilled with how many people have participated. And I think it really informed a lot of the work that folks did over the past year during the pandemic as well, people became really aware of some of the inequities that weren’t as visible previously.

Melina:
Thank you so much for sharing some details. It’s delightful, even just to picture briefly how you chose to facilitate those and the responses. I love the searching for authentic stories from your own campus, with having students present. That seems really exciting. This might be a good time to mention a couple of things. One is that we made the decision in January to move from a instructor-paced model to having it be a self-paced model, which means now that the course is open all year round. And the reason for that was to give campuses and facilitators more flexibility to run the course on the schedule that worked for them, because we kept trying to guess and get it right, but sometimes we’d get right in the middle of the busiest part of the semester, which some people loved but other people… it didn’t work so well for them. So I think that’s a good decision. We started to wonder more about how are people facilitating the course we’re doing and trying to reach out to them and have conversations or looking for a little bit of feedback, even informally, just like this, to see how things were going. So, we heard similar things from a few others like they got inspired to look for the stories that were from their own community, in their own students. And there’s many places to look for stories like that: the student newspapers, conversations with faculty, as you’ve described,

Mathew:
I love your strategy of a faculty member bringing their own students and that there’s no substitute for that. So I love that…that’s a great idea. Can I say too, Melina, this is a little bit of the inside part. But it was a big moment for us to let go of the instructor-led version of the MOOC and partially, we just needed to have a reassurance that we had done a good job, that the quality of the work was substantial enough that it could just sort of go forth. And we were always confident that our colleagues could facilitate it well. I think, John and Rebecca, it’s such a compliment to your on campus facilitation, because we know the number one thing here is not the advertising, it’s word of mouth. And if colleagues are saying to their friends and associates, “Oh, yeah, it wasn’t a terrible thing, you know, it was an okay use of my time” …then we know that’s so much more persuasive than any kind of blitz you could do through email or anything else. And if you’re continuing to get this large group, and that’s a significant proportion of your faculty continuing to find this a good use of their time, then Melina, we can take a deep breath now. We can sort of say, “It’s okay, we let our baby go out into the world, and it’s gonna be okay.”

Melina:
But last year was a very unique year. So we had a giant boost. As soon as the pandemic started, people enrolled in the course. We decided to run the course again, earlier than we had planned in response to the street movement and fighting for racial justice. And we had a giant leap in attendance here at Cornell as a result of that. And then we run another learning community series in October. And then Matt mentioned, we ran one in the spring too. We do have some fun things to report out on in terms of patterns of what people are saying about what they’re learning. We have a pre-post survey that gives us a sense of how people feel at the beginning, and then matches to their experience of how they feel at the end. And so I was surprised by the things that floated to the top. So I can share what the top four things were. The number one thing that they moved the most on… so this was things that they’ve collectively they move the most on… So the first one was, “I’m aware of campus resources to support colleagues and students in sustaining inclusive learning environments.” I don’t know why that one’s surprised me. But I think even though our course is sort of the Cornell example, most college campuses in the US have all sorts of support and offices in place. And so this might have been the place where they finally got to hear the list of all the different offices that support student learning and accessibility. The second one was “I feel prepared to address controversial comments that may arise in class.” But that was one worry that we had initially, was that an asynchronous online course would never take the place of a face-to-face learning experience. This shows me and Matt’s bias also, because we’ve been strongly face-to-face instructors for most of our teaching careers. So we had to learn, ourselves, how to be online instructors, and what that meant… how to have a stronger presence in the course itself. So between our pilot version of the course and the second iteration, we added more videos of ourselves. And so we were very gratified by seeing this number of people feel more competent around this. The other one is “I’m informed about specific strategies for creating more inclusive classrooms.” And the fourth one is “I feel confident I can evaluate my course structure and materials for inclusivity.” So that’s where things are trending very strongly. We’re hoping to publish some findings pretty soon about that. And then the other response that we hear over and over again, is how moving the videos were, which to me is personally gratifying, because from the moment when I was a little girl, my father used to read to me every night before bed and, tried and true, I do the same with my kids. Stories were just my way into learning about the world and continue to be so. So it’s just the thing that moves us, our emotions, it’s the thing that makes us open to caring about systemic change, because the door opens to us through individuals… the stories and experiences of discrimination. When we share in community about our own experiences of discrimination and bias, and even our own mistakes that we’ve made with others. I think that kind of learning is so powerful. And so I think that we were able, through the videos, to lift that experience of storytelling,

John:
The narratives in there are extremely powerful, and people reacted really positively to them.

Rebecca:
…especially because there were such a wide variety of disciplines reflected, which I think is really important and sometimes can be challenging for an individual campus to do a small workshop series or something and get that broad of representation at each little event. You might have representation throughout a whole semester or a whole academic year, but maybe difficult to have that much representation in a single sitting of something

Mathew:
Absolutely. Even like the tried and true method of a panel, It doesn’t really necessarily lend itself for people to really do a deep dive or really share. The other thing that I’ve come to appreciate even more deeply is the power of getting out ahead of a crisis and providing an opportunity for folks to just talk, to grapple with ideas, provide them some frameworks. They may not like Melina and I had this very interesting conversation with one of our colleagues who was going through the reading list saying, “too aggressive,” “not deep enough,” and was just sort of a typical faculty critique of the reading list. I was like, “Super engaged, I love it.” Absolutely. Bring it on. I’m not changing any of the readings, but I loved having that conversation, because I thought, that’s someone who’s really gotten engaged and is trying to figure out how to apply this in the context of her work and her discipline and her students. And for me, that’s the best that it gets. But it is this capacity building or resilience building. So all of your cohorts, all those folks who sat together, that’s a transformative human experience. It sort of harkens back to the sitting around the campfire. They’ve had this moment together that… I don’t know when or how, but I’m positive it will do good. It will do good for the campus. And it will do good for students. And nothing else, like Melina was suggesting, it gives you a small cohort of colleagues to rely on and to say, “I’m not really sure about this, what do you think? What would you do in this situation?” And the other thing that we came to learn, which I have to say, Melina and I were both very slow to want to do anything online. But we also were very suspicious of lurkers. And we were sort of like, “Well, where are these people? They’ve signed up, but they’re here, but they’re not posting anything in the discussion board. But I’ve now come to really embrace lurking as a form of learning. I’m not dismissive of it at all. I think some people want to be in the conversation. They’re taking it in, they’re absorbing it, but they just don’t feel like they have a lot they want to say yet. Or someone else has already said it, or they’re waiting to see what other people have to say. So Melina and I have, a number of times, come back around to this conversation about what does it mean to really be engaged. And I think our growth edge, our learning, has been to really expand that definition of what it means to be engaged. So if you sign up for the course, but you never log in, that’s not engaged, that’s wishful thinking. But if you sign in and you tap through any of the videos, or even look at the resources, like I had to smile when you said your colleague maybe didn’t do all of the writing. Not a problem. What we’re finding is that people will circle back around. Like we’ve had a number of people who’ve taken the course twice. I think that’s a phenomenal commitment on a faculty member’s part, I mean, just given how stretched everybody is for time.

Melina:
Yeah, I have a faculty member who emailed me today saying I can’t wait for next spring, when will offer learning community opportunities again, so that I can take it for the third time. [LAUGHTER] And she was trying to remember where she could find the references to active learning strategies. So I’m like, “those are in Module Three.” “Oh, great.” That’s what she was really looking for. There was a new faculty member at the University of Pittsburgh who contacted me what seems like ages ago, it turns out, it was only last December, but it feels like three years ago, and she wanted to talk about how we made the videos because she wanted to make videos on her own campus. And so that was really inspiring. And she recently reached out again, and I met with her this morning, and she’s gotten all her academic leadership on board, they’re going to make their own asynchronous class, they have a video team in place to make it. This is inspiring, because our action plans are always inspiring. And sometimes a person’s action plan is this is a draft of my syllabus diversity statement, or this is my plan for TAs or graduate students. Sometimes they’re thinking of a plan that will be years down the road, or they’re thinking how to bring in diversified speakers. All of those are strategies that we took all of the action plans that people had submitted locally and made word clouds with them, and the word student is the thing. It just stood out as the most giant thing. And so I thought, wow, this is telling me that student centered learning strategies are the thing that people are walking away with. It was a litmus test, but this person took it over and above. And so I just thought, it’s a ripple effect. It’s her project. And she’ll go on to inspire others. We’ve had people come back and say, “Can you do one for librarians? Can you do one for teaching graduate students? Can you do one for the law profession or medical profession?” She’s making one that’s anchored in the medical profession. So I just celebrated her and said, “I hope you can make it a MOOC and not just for your own campus.” Maybe the same thing will happen to them that happened to us, which is they’ll start small and then dive out.

Rebecca:
It’s amazing how projects sometimes balloon like that.[LAUGHTER] Like, wow, that’s not quite what I had in mind and now I have this giant thing that I’m doing. We’re glad that it happened. I wanted to comment a little bit, Matt, on lurking. As a lurker, I thought I might just confess, like what lurkers do. So I followed along twice, the first time I was an active lurker, in part because I was doing a lot of self reflection, and I didn’t want to communicate with other people while I was processing. I had to have some of that time and space to process for myself and how that related to other diversity, equity and inclusion things that I was engaged in, and so that I could then articulate to other people how that fit in with what I was doing, because I needed that time and space to process. And then the second time, I was an active, engaged participant, but I definitely lurked the first time and it was really to have that self-reflection time.

Mathew:
I’m so glad you did. You have to do that. Otherwise, the tension between making ourselves vulnerable and protecting ourselves can be immobilizing. I’m delighted to hear that. I actually think, Milena, that might be something interesting. We figured out early on that people needed us to normalize posting to a discussion list is not academic writing, just post your thought and let things evolve. And we sort of struggled with that and figured out some language on that. But now I’m wondering… Rebecca, do you think it would be helpful if we posted a little something about the benefit of being a lurker, to just sort of normalize that and say, “This is really emotional, and it’s deep And maybe you just want to slide through and focus on yourself, and that’s perfectly fine.”

Rebecca:
Yeah, maybe we don’t call it lurking. But really, it’s more like a journaling

MATTHEW: Yes.

Rebecca:
Like a self reflection kind of activity. Like I did a lot of the activities a first time just kind of in my notebook and was thinking through things.

Mathew:
See, I think you’ve put your finger on one of the attributes of life in academia and higher ed that stymies this kind of work, which is we leap to action, and we don’t provide enough opportunity for ourselves to just do the kind of internal work we need to to feel some sense of groundedness. What do I think? What have my experiences been? What has worked for me and what am I still working on? …kind of things. And to be quite honest, you would have been my favorite student. If that was what you got in round one, I would have been totally happy, but moving it into the campus or into a discussion with your colleagues. That for me is icing on the cake, because you as a teacher will be transformed by that, where you’ll never approach any of this stuff the same way again.

Melina:
I have a friend who’s an internet scholar, so she actually researches lurking. I read a draft of an article that she wrote where she actually talked about the importance of lurking for learning about different others… like basically, it was making an argument that lurking is a really good way to learn how to be an ally, to learn about groups that you’re not a member of, to learn what new vocabulary is out there, in terms of how to talk about certain topics. I know, there’s a lot of anxiety about offending people and getting the terms right. And I’m at the point now where I’m likely to make mistakes, because things have changed enough within my own lifetime that the vocabulary is constantly really being updated. I think that anything we can do to reduce anxiety and help people feel more connected to each other, to the course, to have opportunities to just reflect on their own experiences. And you’re not the only one who engaged with the course that way, Rebecca. The woman I talked to this morning did the same. She posted, but she would only post at the end of reading every other person’s reflections. And I’ll say, just in case somebody goes to the course and says, “Well, where are the discussion boards?” …that was one of the things that we ended up giving up in moving to the self-paced modality. And that’s because we couldn’t staff moderators 24/7. Before we were able to have a robust and temporary staff in place that would help us moderate the discussion boards. We just know that sometimes there are bad actors who aren’t there for learning. We never had trouble in our discussion boards, they were lovely, so that was such a difficult decision to make. But we revised the guide that we wrote for facilitators to just encourage thinking about and talking about alternative means to supplement those, whether it’s a closed Facebook group or a discussion board in Canvas, or leaving extra time during the face-to-face opportunities. But it sounds like, in your structure, your face-to-face opportunities are giving people plenty of opportunity for discussion.

Rebecca:
Can you talk a little bit about how you facilitated at Cornell?

Melina:
Sure, I’d be delighted to. It’s complicated because it’s not the same every time. So just to give you a sense, I co-facilitated with another staff member from our center, we did a faculty interdisciplinary learning community, same person with addition two other staff, one person from the graduate school. We did the one for graduate students and postdocs together with a slightly different curriculum. I partnered with a faculty member from the school for integrative Plant Sciences and we anchored that one in the department this last time. This is like the story of my life. I used to team teach as a community college professor, but I was the one that had to be the team teacher with everybody. So every year I had two or three new teaching partners for the same course. So I’d be basically begging them to use my course syllabus so that we could have a little bit of sanity for me. So I love this because people have different facilitation styles, they bring different skills to the table. So it’s very inspiring, and they’re very different. So the interdisciplinary faculty cohort is one kind of experience. The faculty there basically love hearing about similarities and differences, like they’re so relieved to find colleagues who care just as much as they do about inclusion. And they’re delighted to hear about strategies that maybe they can try and they’re also relieved to share the knotty points of difficulty that others may not be facing that are discipline specific to them. And then, in the cohorts that we’ve led that are anchored in the department, those conversations are just as rich because you can focus on things that are important to that group. So in the School For Integrative Plant Sciences, we asked the chair to provide a scenario for a difficult conversation so that we could have a little practice around that. And they’re remodeling their entranceway. So they’re having these discussions about how to portray their discipline. And so the argument is about the history of the discipline and all the white male people versus wanting to diversify the discipline nowadays and what they want to do. So we had a pretty amazing sort of hot topics dialogue that I think left them feeling more empowered and more ready. And the person who’s actually truly leading that initiative was also relieved to hear all the different opinions. And it was really important to hear the different perspectives. I don’t know if that completely answers your question. I’m just right, fresh out of doing those. So I kept a journal where I just kept writing down little ideas. Matt and I keep talking about writing a book about this. Like, I want to make sure I write about this and write about that and write about this. So it was a deeply reflective process for me. I keep learning a tremendous amount. And sometimes, to go back to Matt’s earlier comment, we’re not going to change the readings, but sometimes we do go and make updates or add references. we weren’t able to touch on every single identity category. And sometimes people don’t find themselves and they say, “Why didn’t you talk about this or that?” And so then we make an effort to do that. And I have a running list of edits that are ready to be worked on for the next version of the course that gets posted.

Mathew:
If I could tailgate, Melina, there are two points that you made that I just think are so evocative of our approach to this. One is we really wait to see who’s registered and how they fall out. Are there cohorts? Are there natural cohorts that emerge from that, and that was your point, Melina, about it being complicated, and sort of last minute, because we sort of wait to see who’s on board. And then your second point that I just want to reiterate is, it’s organic. And I think we’re both learning both about the DEI issues, but also about teaching and teaching in an online environment. And what does it mean to have a global perspective in a MOOC? This is new to both of us still. And so it’s always really interesting. And we’re trying to still… like Melina has revised the handbook for facilitators every single semester, because we keep getting really good ideas from folks across the spectrum who have tried some things out and said, “This really worked, and this didn’t.” And our goal always is to make it as useful as possible. So it also keeps it really interesting. So it’s the same course. But it’s never the same course, you know that, you’re both deeply embedded in teaching as well.

John:
Yeah, the discussions vary dramatically depending on the specific composition. And when we were meeting three times a week, or four times a week one time, each discussion with a little different depending on who happened to show up that day. And it worked well, though. I appreciated the fact that I got to participate in many of those discussions.

Mathew:
In the ideal world, that’s exactly what it would be, you would sort of have a flipped classroom, you would do the online course. But you would always have a cohort of people to talk through your ideas with and I think that’s, for me, the ideal scenario. And I have to ask, are you assessing this? Obviously, people being there is one key assessment, that’s a huge vote of confidence. So clearly, you’re doing really well. The fact that they come back, that’s even better evidence.

John:
We have not done any formal assessments. We’d like to, but we’re somewhat understaffed. We’d like to assess many more of the things that we’re doing at the teaching center, and certainly the effectiveness of this would be useful. I wish we had a good answer for you on that.

Mathew:
Actually, that’s a really good answer, John, because it’s sort of provoking me to think, together with Melina. We’ve got the protocol that we use, the pre-post, and Melina and our other colleague, Amy Cardace Ardays are working on publishing that protocol. But that might be something that if we can move that process along, that would give you something at the campus level, easy to administer, and really, really interesting. So it’s all self report, of course, but it at least gives you a sense of over time, in general, and an aggregated level, what our faculty finding useful about the experience in terms of their own learning and development. I hadn’t thought of that. Yeah,

Melina:
I did a presentation at the IUPUI conference, and, as a result of that, I have started collaborating with a couple of other institutions who are in particular interested in how to assess their inclusive teaching interventions. And so, in one case, they started by wanting to use our protocol, but embed the protocol in the other part of their plan that they had in place. So we’ll be presenting together as a team this year at IUPUI, which I’m excited about. And I also think that assessing the learning communities is its own sticky wicket. The learning goals are both the same ones that are in the course and you also want to know whether the learning community itself went as well as it could have or what you might do differently because I still have a goal here locally at Cornell to have more of these department level immersions because those are the ones that have been pretty exciting because colleagues suddenly see each other with new eyes, like they see their colleagues as co-agents for change and social justice work instead of having the experience in the interdisciplinary group that I mentioned where they’re like, “Thank goodness, there’s someone over across campus who cares as much as I do.” So part of assessment is being able to tell your story persuasively about what you’re doing and why people should participate.

Mathew:
I think also, part of what assessment can do is reflect on what’s next. What’s the growth edge here? What would help people in the next step and so as Melina said, departments are our big go-to next step. We’re really interested in working with a coherent subset of people we’ll never get an entire department. And we don’t need that. We don’t need unanimity. We just need a core of consensus that this is a worthwhile use of their time. And what Melina hasn’t mentioned, is this other project she’s working on with another colleague of ours that I think is super interesting, which is curriculum mapping through a DEI lens. And so really, when we think about systemic change, in building more multicultural, inclusive institutions, the department is really the unit of analysis. That’s where the work happens. And it’s also where the chief stakeholders stay the longest. And so, Provosts rollover, Chancellors rollover, presidents come and go, but departments mostly stay intact. And so, if they choose to invest in this sort of critical analyses of DEI issues, there’s great possibility for really changing long term the experiences of undergrads and grads and also the people who are part of the department. It goes to recruitment and retention at every level, from undergrads,to grad students to new and junior faculty. So we’ve been sort of building, socializing the course on campus, building a sense that this is a good use of your time globally. And then Melina has… how many departments have you’ve worked with now? Four? Three?

Melina:
We have three on deck for the fall, and had those initial conversations about getting things started and meeting them specifically where they are at in their process. People have expressed different beginning points or interests for where they want to get started. But this is what my colleague Kathleen Landy, who is really helping us to visualize difficult concepts in a very simple way. She’s basically created some tools that we can use to lead people through this process. And we’re socializing… it might not be the right word… but we’re basically getting the word out that this is a program and a service that we offer, and having some initial conversations with folks to just let them know what this is and how the resource works. And, so far, the reception has been really positive. And I think there’s just a different set of needs. We sometimes just talk about different entry points, maybe people want to think about curriculum, maybe they really want to think about pedagogy. I met with a group today that really wanted to help getting a discussion started about social identities and implicit bias. And so that’s really about instructor self reflection, and what our lived experiences have been, and then how we translate those into our teaching practices. So, one fantasy that I have is that our portfolio basically runs the gamut around that framework, so that people who want to work on curriculum have a rich tool for curriculum mapping, and then they also get the benefit of the facilitated dialogue and deeper conversations.

Mathew:
Yeah, I’m a big follower of the sort of John Dewey approach, start where the learner wants to start. And in many cases, all roads lead to Rome. It doesn’t really matter where we start if we have a holistic systems perspective.

Rebecca:
… and the desire to start.

Mathew:
Absolutely. [LAUGHTER] That’s the critical piece. Exactly.

Melina:
Which is an important threshold to cross over… the desire to start. People come to us because they want to, as opposed to this is now a university requirement or something like that, because that threshold is so important and meaningful.

John:
I think a lot of campuses have reached that threshold now because the pandemic, as Rebecca had mentioned earlier, has revealed a lot of the inequities and challenges that our students face in ways that were always there, but that faculty may not have been as fully aware of. It’s much harder to ignore some of the challenges our students face when you had to deal with them in class every day, when you can see them struggling with things that would be hidden when they were on campus. Many people are ready for addressing these issues and these challenges.

Mathew:
I couldn’t agree more. I think timing is everything. And our hope is to build a port of entry. That, like Melina mentioned very early on, we do everything we can to bring people’s anxiety down so they can relax and be in a mode that allows the learning to take place. If it’s okay, I’d love to hear from the two of you about what would you like to see in Teaching and Learning in the Diverse Classroom? What would you see as a next step?

Melina:
We were thinking of maybe starting a podcast. [LAUGHTER] Just kidding, just kidding.

John:
We’d be happy to help.

Melina:
We love your podcast.

Mathew:
Yeah.

Rebecca:
That was one of those projects that started small that blew up big as well. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca:
I do have an answer. One of the things that I think that we struggle with… limited resources… and also, the complexity of timing is always a challenge being able to bring people together at a specific time, so we offer things at multiple times. One of the things that we always have trouble measuring or reporting out Is what do people do with this information? And so some of the pre- and post-testing that you were mentioning before, I think, gets at that a little bit. But what’s the reflection that happens a specific period of time afterward, is something that we haven’t done yet. We haven’t engaged. I think we both have this inclination to want to do some of that stuff, but like, not always the capacity to do it. And then also, we’ve tried a couple of things like badges if you want to tell your story. And sometimes it’s hard to collect that information in a way that’s useful, that doesn’t take ages for someone to produce to submit it to us. And then also to like, analyze it. [LAUGHTER]

Mathew:
That’s a great point, we’ve bandied about this idea of sort of a retrospective survey, like a semester out, a year out, two years out, what remains important or salient? or what have you done differently? And we’re still, I think, in discussion. Is that a way to say it, Melina? We haven’t really resolved yet how to do that. And for us, it’s the same issue. It’s bandwidth.

Melina:
I appreciated the fact that Matt was writing down your idea, Rebecca, [LAUGHTER] because sometimes it’s a matter of timing, getting us at the right flow of the creative curve, and also the amount of times that we get the same ask. So if somebody else had asked for more videos that had faculty talking about successful strategies and how to implement them. So we might be able to talk to your point and meet that person’s invitation. And the other requests that we’ve had, which we haven’t had bandwidth for, was to present a wider variety of different types of institutions, especially in module five when we’re talking about institutional change efforts. So that was one idea. We would love to explore these if we had the capacity.

John:
On that issue, though, I do have to say that the people you chose to speak, I think, speak to all institutions. I think some people may have been concerned that this was coming out of Cornell, and we’re four-year public institution. But no one really left with any concerns about that. I think the issues that are addressed are pretty universal. I think that part works really well. One thing though, that I know a number of faculty were looking for is more specific guidance on what techniques could work to make their discussions a little more inclusive in class and what other techniques could be used to help improve the success of students who are struggling. And there’s so many things there that the issue gets really wide. And I think the topics you chose are really good and universal and apply to everyone. But I know a lot of people would like some things specifically, that could help narrow some of the challenges in STEM classes, where the success rates vary very dramatically. And a lot of faculty were raising questions about that, particularly in math and in the sciences, and so forth. There’s a lot that’s already there. There’s just so much you can do in a five-week class. And I think what you have there is wonderful.

Rebecca:
What you’re saying, John, actually makes me think about a need to send a reminder to people that have participated in a cohort about all the resources that were available there, because now you’ve had time and space to reflect, maybe have tried some things in classes, and it might be worth revisiting some of the material again.

Melina:
One thing that I wished we could do, which we just couldn’t quite figure out a way to do this, but in the MOOC, we had people post what their action plans were on the discussion board. So now we’ve lost access to being able to see those, but the ones that we get through our Cornell cohorts are pretty incredible. And the quality of those jumps up significantly when we have a learning community, like the learning community action plans. I think John said this earlier, like it just helps people finish the course and actually get through it just to be part of a learning community. But then also the quality of the action plans, I think because they’re presenting them to each other… our last session in our learning community is them presenting their plan… and then hearing their colleagues questions and feedback. And those have been really impressive. And I like, John, what you’re saying. I think people want to see some examples of this in action. Like sometimes I wish we could get sort of live footage of a classroom where someone’s doing a really great job and have the camera be… people know it’s there, but they can forget about it.

Mathew:
Melina and I’ve talked at length about sort of what’s missing in this experience is the experiential aspect. And there’s a certain component in the dialogue, the discussion that you host or facilitate that helps with that, that’s super helpful. Because even though you may not be having people do psychodrama, or acting out role plays or stuff like that, but just the act of talking through these moments can be enormously helpful. But we’ve been really trying to think about how the next step might be something that’s more experiential, because oftentimes, people just need literally the physicality of a practice, of a walk through. He says this, she says that, what do I do? Then something else gets said, then what do I do to that? And that sort of is part and parcel to building a sense of efficacy, like you don’t need to have all the answers but you do need to have some strategies that you feel are useful in the moment and don’t dig you into a deeper hole. So that’s one of the other things… I don’t have an answer for that yet, but we’ve been thinking.

Rebecca:
Our DEI officer, Rodman King, has ran sessions on our campus that are like that,like little scenarios, and did small groups where people were talking through it and those are some really popular sessions, they always needed more time. People got really engaged and really wanted to talk through the details and really process. So we often didn’t get through more than one or two examples in a session, but it was a incredibly popular sessions when we’ve offered those.

Mathew:
Yeah, I love that idea. And people feel like there’s an expert in the room who can help them. And it’s theoretical, it’s a scenario, so they can risk making a mistake, but the practice is real, that level of physicalities It’s a wonderful idea.

Melina:
Can I circle back to something John said earlier about the people being worried about the Cornelll voices being like too Cornell or something like that? I think that the reason that that doesn’t happen is because people were willing to make themselves vulnerable during the interview process. So they really come across as three dimensional complicated human beings who are willing to tell their stories of struggle and the background. And I actually think that we have a situation at Cornell, where the name of the institution itself basically has almost everybody suffering under some kind of horrible imposter [LAUGHTER] syndrome, which makes us maybe nicer people, I don’t know. But my experience here has been that my colleagues are incredibly kind and welcoming and eager to support their students’ learning… that always is shared among faculty everywhere, but they’re also eager to support each other’s learning in adult spaces. And that has continued to be a delightful point of engagement. I used to teach undergraduates and now all of my work is through our teaching center. And I really far prefer working with adults thinking about social identity in a different way, like maybe they arrived already. Oh, no, wait, there’s new things to learn.

Rebecca:
I think that authenticity really comes through, which is really powerful. And I think you’re right. On camera, everyone feels really authentic. It doesn’t feel scripted. And I think that’s what’s important about it.

Mathew:
I totally agree, Rebecca, I’m really happy to hear that that’s your perception. Obviously, we picked the people. And part of it also was people relish the invitation to be honest, and to tell what their stories are as they are unfolding. And so I think, Melina, this is where you started, the power of the story, but it’s also the power of inviting people to share their story, that indication that “Yeah, we really want to hear it.” And I do want to do a little bit of a shout out for Melina, she was our… I don’t even know what to call her… executive producer. She was our talent manager. And so she did a lovely job of engaging everybody and getting them centered and made sure they had coffee or water, just sort of genuinely set the stage for a real dialogue, much like you and John do in this podcast. You just make it really easy to be present and say what’s on your mind.

Rebecca:
Thanks. Speaking of invitations, we always invite people to tell us what’s going to happen next. So what’s next? [LAUGHTER]

Mathew:
Next is action plans, Melina and I still have to wrap up the class so… which is actually, even though it’s July, it’s our favorite part of the class. We love reading and responding. So we’ve chosen to do the responses to the action plans by brief recorded videos, mostly because it warms up the classroom. And also we start talking about it, and I think our feedback is far more robust. And we read for different things. So it’s always so interesting to me to hear what resonated for Melina and why. And so I’m really looking forward to that. And then, Melina…

Melina:
What’s next… I want to do a deeper dive on the importance of storytelling. So this isn’t next on our MOOC, but just on what we’re thinking of offering next year through our center to support inclusive teaching, but just really enlivening and bringing to bear this idea that storytelling is an inclusive pedagogy, how to do it, when to do it, when it’s appropriate. It goes back to John’s question about how do you facilitate lively discussions? How do you bring in the personal and the individual when you’re wrestling with difficult scholarly ideas? Sometimes we get folks from STEM saying, “Oh, this is Social Sciences, like the humanities and social sciences should deal with this. So making it relevant, making a case for why who we are as people really matters to the way we learn, how we learn, how we feel in the classroom about affect. So we have a few projects related to that new avenue.

John:
And there was also a brief mention of the possibility of a book. Is that something planned in the near term? Or is this a longer time horizon project?

Mathew:
Well, we have an outline. I think…

Rebecca:
…that’s a start.

Mathew:
Yes, it’s a big start. We have the will, and we have the way, we just now need to do the work. But I think we could help people. I think we have some things to say about how campuses can galvanize around teaching and learning inclusively, as a modality for systemic change. People want to, like you were saying earlier, John, there’s a great interest in these issues now. The salience is higher than it’s ever been before. People I think are just not really sure how to get started. And I think that the Teaching and Learning in the Diverse Classroom course tries to break it down and say there are multiple points of entry, any one of which is useful. We could sort of do that at the department level. Teaching in a course is one point of entry but also curriculum mapping and sort of the other things that we do with folks could work as well.

Rebecca:
I love the idea of the ports of entry.

John:
Thank you. It’s great talking to you again. And next time I do hope we can get together and have some tea in person, either on our campus or on yours or at some conference somewhere.

Mathew:
I would love that. And good luck to everybody who’s still teaching. Thank you all so much. It’s a pleasure.

Rebecca:
Thank you.

Melina:
Thank you.

[MUSIC]

John:
If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page.

Rebecca:
You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com. Music by Michael Gary Brewer.

[MUSIC]