389. Inclusive Math Instruction

Undergraduate math courses, as traditionally taught, often serve as barriers to entry into many STEM disciplines. In this episode, Aris Winger joins us to discuss strategies that can increase student success and reduce equity gaps in student outcomes in these classes.

Aris is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Georgia Gwinnett College. His current areas of interest include equity in mathematics education, culturally responsive teaching, and social justice mathematics. He is a co-author of the book series Advocating for Students of Color in Mathematics and is the Executive Director of the National Association of Mathematicians.

Transcript

John: Undergraduate math courses, as traditionally taught, often serve as barriers to entry into many STEM disciplines. In this episode, we explore strategies that can increase student success and reduce equity gaps in student outcomes in these classes.

[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 Aris Winger. Aris is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Georgia Gwinnett College. His current areas of interest include equity in mathematics education, culturally responsive teaching, and social justice mathematics. He is a co-author of the book series Advocating for Students of Color in Mathematics and is the Executive Director of the National Association of Mathematicians. Welcome Aris.

Aris: Thank you for having me.

John: It’s great to see you again. You were here not too long ago to do some workshops on our campus. Today’s teas are:… Aris, are you drinking any tea?

Aris: Oh, I am not drinking tea. I’m drinking water. Yeah, my family is a big tea drinking family, but I’m just a water drinker.

Rebecca: That’s okay, water is the foundation of tea.

Aris: Yeah, that’s right. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: I’m drinking Blue Sapphire today, John.

John: Back to an old favorite.

Rebecca: It is, yeah.

John: And I am drinking Lady Grey.

Rebecca: Oh, nice, I had that not too long ago.

Aris: Excellent.

Rebecca: So in most colleges and universities, passing rates in math classes are lower than most other disciplines, and we’ve invited you here today to discuss strategies that would allow more students to be successful in the study of math. First, though, can you tell us a little bit about your own educational journey?

Aris: So yes, I was valued in math from my earliest mathematical memory, and so my earliest mathematical memory was with my mother, who was showing me the future. I remember going up to her and, like, “Mom, look, two plus three is five.” She was like, “soon you’ll notice that two and she put an x 3 is six.” I was like, “What’s that?” She’s like, “You’ll see.” And then from there, like, early on, I was doing two-digit multiplications faster than other people. And then the teachers around me were like, “Oh, you’re good, you’re fast, you can do this.” And so I say, “Oh, I guess I can.” And so I started to develop sort of a math identity. That is to say that it became part of me to be, quote, good at math. And I kept that for a long time. And when life got rough for me, when I was younger, I could always go to math and be safe at math, because I felt an identity. I felt good there, I felt valuable in mathematics. And so it just became a deep part of my identity. So that meant that I was going to major in math. That meant that I was going to be a mathematics professor the whole nine. So I continue to go back and look at that story to see my through line. And I’ve had to change the story, by the way. It used to be, in this journey that I’ve had, I’ve had to change the story also, because the story used to be, “Oh, I’m just smarter than other people,” when, in fact, the story really was that I’ve been trained. And really making this understanding that not that drinking the Kool Aid, that somehow I’m ordained to have a mathematical brain, I’ve been trained, and I deserve to say that I was trained, because I put in a lot of work. And so if a surgeon can say they were trained, a mathematician can say that they were trained also, and so for 10 years, from 1995 to 2005 I got a bachelor’s, master’s and PhD in mathematics. That 10 years was training.

John: A very large share of students that we see in college say “I’ve never been good at math”. Why do so many students come in struggling with math or believing that they’re not capable of being successful in math?

Aris: Yeah, well, it’s because they’ve had mathematical experiences that weren’t optimal for them. And so there’s a narrative that I want to interrogate, and I’m thankful for this opportunity to speak out, an interrogation of a narrative that we have to call into question. And so it is this notion that somehow math has done something to us and math has done nothing to us. So when someone says that they hate math, they’re not talking about the body of knowledge that’s the greatest body of knowledge in history of the human experience. They’re not talking about that. They’re talking about a human relational experience they’ve had in the culture of mathematics that humans have built about how we do math, particularly in the western context. And so whenever someone today says, “Oh, I hate math,” then I just say, lots of my colleagues say, “Oh, I’m sorry that happened to you.” I just say, “Who was it? What grade? Tell me what happened.” And then often they will say, “Oh, it’s this person, here’s what they said to me,” or “here’s why I didn’t like this class.” Lots of times they also say it was when the letter showed up. And so for me, what helps me is that I try to return to the innocence of the person that is talking to me. So when someone says that, I’m thinking about a kid sitting in the chair and then all of a sudden, they’ve been doing percentages, they’ve been doing proportions, and then all of a sudden someone writes an X up on the board and says, I want to know what X is. And for some reason, it blows this person away, like I have no idea what’s going on. And that person starts to, maybe for the first time, feel unsure, feel like they don’t belong. Now, there are all these feelings that are showing up that never got attended to. And we know in this discipline, the way that it is taught, that that cascades, because then this builds on the next thing, which builds on the next thing, and then all of a sudden you find yourself, “Whoa, I gotta get out of this thing.” Now, the tragedy that we have in our society is that we have lots and lots of our young people who are getting out of the discipline of mathematics, and it’s the most important, [LAUGHTER] right? And so that’s the tragedy, that’s the crisis, that we have so many people leaving our discipline. And so I want to be clear, that doesn’t mean that everyone needs to be a math major. That means that the world that I dream of is one in which we’re all connected and thriving quantitatively. What does that mean? That means that we are allowing ourselves, or we have the permission, to ask quantitative questions like, “Why does that cost that much?” and “is that the right percentage rate for my mortgage?” and “why don’t I want that payday loan?” Right now we have so many silent people quantitatively, because the predominant space in which we think quantitatively is in school, and so in school, school mathematics, systematically, is about some other narratives that we continue to uphold, like speed and correctness, and it doesn’t allow for the imagination to grow. So the answer to your question is that these experiences, when we see the people today in our colleges, they are, in terms of math, they are an extension of a past experience that is over a decade long. And so I want to return all of our kids back to that, in a sense, to “Wait, you know, you’ve had a math experience that has been difficult.” And for me, one of my goals is to create a new narrative for those people who come into my class, and not just for them. And so if I can get a young person or old person, whoever’s in my class, to think differently about math, then maybe they get their cousin to think differently about math and their little sister. And because, again, you never know who’s watching and who’s going to see how you interact and how that impacts them.

Rebecca: You’ve talked about our individual experiences with math and how much they vary, and they vary across elementary and secondary school districts as well. What can college math instructors do to help address these inequities in prior knowledge?

Aris: The first thing I would think of is that each college instructor needs to look at each of their people as an individual. And so for me, for so long, I would go to my pre-calculus class or college algebra and say, “Okay, I’m teaching that group,” and that was 11 years ago. And today I go in and I’m saying, “Oh, I’ve got Sammy, I’ve got Mark, I’ve got Jamal, I’ve got Lisa, I’ve got Tiana, right? I’ve got this group of people, and I’m teaching this subject today. Given who I have in my class, what should I be doing today? And how should I do it today?” And so there is a returning, or perhaps introducing, for the first time, a humanity of the people who are in my class. And so that’s the first thing. Just acknowledge that you’re teaching a group of human individuals Now, from there, there’s an acknowledgement that you yourself come from a culture, come from an experience, and that that’s going to impact the way that you teach. And so then, now, at this point, how is it that we can develop a good relationship between yourself and the people who you’re going to be engaging with for the next 14, 15, 16, weeks in this discipline, and then thinking about also this balance between your relationship with those people and the content, and which one comes first. And so for so long, it’s like, “Oh, I gotta get through this. I gotta get through this. I gotta get through this topic, this topic, this topic, this topic.” And the thing that keeps me up at night is that, in our discipline, there’s a crucial question that’s lacking in our discipline still, and it is the question I think we have to ask ourselves, is, “How do my students feel?” Somehow, the question of how my students feel when I give back assignment and it’s marked up with red, or if Pearson MyMathLab says that, “No, that’s incorrect,” and they’ve been working on it, or if they’re in ALEKS and they’ve been working on a topic for 35 minutes, and ALEKS says, “You know what, I think you should move on.” How that makes them feel? Or maybe a policy that I have of no late homework, even though they have two jobs, all of that. How is it that what I do in a space where I have all the control, how does it make my students feel? And then to rectify that with how I want them to feel learning the greatest discipline in the history. Now we know how I want them to feel. I want them to feel curious. I want them to feel empowered. I hold knowledge that I’m trying to convey and explore, for them to be super powerful, super engaged and literate quantitatively. And so I want all these positive emotions, and yet all these negative emotions are happening. And so part of my job as a professional, I see, is to try and ease that tension, to have them try and learn it, but also for them to feel joy, to feel curiosity, to feel great about themselves, right? And so I was at the joint math meetings, and I was giving a talk, and at the end, I was talking about feedback forms, that you’ve got to get feedback from your students in order to understand what’s going on with them, because you don’t understand what’s going down, that was the bold claim I was making as a teacher. A person in the audience at the end said “I wanted to push back.” Now I love pushback, because lots of great things come out of pushback, just like I want to push back. And I was like, “Okay, great.” And then he says, well, sometimes you shouldn’t listen to their feedback, because I had a student, and we were in class, it was a class of five, and we went through the whole semester, and I could tell they hated the entire experience, but then they came up to me a semester after this semester, came up to me and said, “I hated every moment of your class, but I learned all the material.” And then he said, “that’s the reason why we should ignore our students’ feedback.” And then I responded to him. But then afterwards, after the talk was over, I went out, and he pulled me aside. It’s like, “See I did my job.” And I said, “But wait, so this person got all the content from you, but this person hated every moment in this class, and you think you did your job,” and to anybody who’s listening, that if students got all the content but hated every moment of it, then we haven’t done our job. And that, I want to imagine us doing mathematics and them getting content in connection to the greatest discipline and being who they are, loving every moment. And that’s the dream, and that’s hard, because when you get back a C minus, how can we have someone have joy and get a C minus? And these are hard questions. I don’t claim to have the answers to these, but again, this is tension, but we have to continue to dream, because we have in our hands, we have in our expertise, this great discipline that we have to continue to pass on to people, but pass on to people in joyous ways.

John: Given the diversity in what students come into our class knowing, though, it’s hard to come up with a method of instruction that provides sufficient support for all students while still helping them learn more. How can you build that…

Aris: No, no, what you just said is false. Now, it might be true that we have not been able to do it yet. So what you just said, I respectfully disagree. I think that what you said is true if we continue to do what we’ve been doing, there’s no doubt about that. And so that’s what I mean about dreaming. And so I’ve come on to this podcast to dream with you. And so when you dream, you can’t say stuff like that, because then there’s no openness to be like, “Okay, wait, how can we do something else?” I agree with you that if we keep doing what we’re doing, then… and so let’s unpack that. That means that I go in front of somebody, I go in front of a class, and this happens to all of us. It’s a great problem. You go in front of the class and mathematics, the way it is built now, says that, “Oh, you must have prerequisite knowledge.” And so that means that we think of math in school as a body of knowledge, more than a natural human activity. And this tension, we have to make sure we elucidate and make clear that we can think of math as a body of knowledge, or we can think of it as a place where people get to play. Now, in one of those with the natural human activity, everybody just needs to come, explore, think about mathematic questions. This is the math circles space where you just play. You make it an introductory question, and it’s set up so that there are multiple entry points, and you just go after it, and then you have someone who’s facilitating, who’s valuing every single contribution. Notice I didn’t say answer, every single contribution. Or you can think of our discipline as this compendium of knowledge, where, over the last, however, many centuries since the dawn of humanity, we’ve been collecting all of these mathematical facts into one big thing that, again, is the biggest dossier of human knowledge that humans have. But if you think about it that way, exclusively, then when you come into pre-calculus, then when I look at you, then I’m thinking, “Do you know enough college algebra?” And if I do that, then I’m being exclusionary from the jump. The first day of class, we’re being exclusionary subconsciously, to all of our students, to some of them, right?

John: You interrupted me in the middle of the question. The next part I was going to ask, I think, would get to the points that you’re making, that we want all of our students to be successful in developing their knowledge, but given their differences in backgrounds, what are some strategies we can use, perhaps to leverage peers in class, or in other ways, to help provide that sort of support for all of our students, no matter where their starting point is?

Aris: I think that’s a great question, and it’s true that given if–then statement, if the if I call in the question, I will not hear the then. So yeah, that’s why I interrupted you. So what we have to do is, again, we have to change the narrative of what a teacher thinks. And so now, and I’m about to get into trouble, stepping all the way back, the challenge with our students in mathematics is really a challenge with our professors. And so this means that there are lots of us who are superbly comfortable, who have lifetime jobs with tenure, who have been successful in quotes. What does that mean? That the way they think about success has been, “Oh, I’ve had five to 10 students come back and say, ‘That was a great experience. I have students who are going to graduate school. I have students who are doing research.’” And so the revelation for me was, wait, I’ve had hundreds of students, and I’ve gotten dozens of feedback, [LAUGHTER] and I’m using the dozens of people… like you only hear from the people who are doing great, because the people who don’t like you aren’t going to tell you to your face, right? And so I’ve had biased feedback and like, “Well, wait, what happened to this person, this person, this person, the person I don’t even remember, was I really serving them?” And I actually don’t know the answer to that. And so there’s something about each of us as professors completely being rigorous about how we teach and critical of the way we teach, so that we continue to use new methods. And so this is happening in our discipline, where lots and lots of people are now doing active learning, lots and lots of people are doing less lecture. And so this is not a critique on lecture. It might be a critique on lecture with five people, or it might be a critique on lecture with 300 people. But again, like if you’re lecturing to 300 people for however long, how do our students feel? Later today, I’m doing some stuff with Math for America, and last year, when I did some stuff with them, I had a person and I’m gonna ask whether this is similar for them tonight, who has 35 students in 45 minutes, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. And that person has said, “Well, I can’t do anything but lecture, I’ve got to get the content out.” And this is in the context, of course, in K through 12, where you might have your state forcing you to make sure you do well in the course tests. And so they’re under so much pressure. But again, as we imagine, I’ve seen people do active learning with 35 people in 45 minutes, and so that’s something that you just have to try. So the first thing I want to say is that, what have you been doing? Have you gotten the feedback that it’s working? What are the grades look like in this system and continue to try new things. And so you’re not going to do stuff overnight. The thing that I don’t want to see is that you’re doing the same thing you’ve been doing the last 25 years. That we can’t have. And so I am making a call of action to our professoriate to try something new, be bold, and what better time to do it is when you can’t be fired. We have a lot of anti-tenured, tenured people, in the sense that a big part of the point of getting tenure is to then explore, say what you feel, to not be put in a box. And then that’s sometimes when we become the most conservative. I do want to shout out, though, our lecturers and vital faculty, the visiting, the instructors, the tenure track, the assistant professors, and so forth, that are also thinking about these things, who don’t have the job security, who may not have the ability to be creative in the classroom also, because then they might be judged for it, or say, you know, “You can’t do it that way and don’t have that job security, also.”

Rebecca: As someone outside of mathematics, it seems to me like there’s a role for faculty in other disciplines to play here as well, because there’s a lot of fear mongering around math, I think, from other disciplines and things, maybe from their own mathematical experiences. But I know, as a designer, I’m constantly helping students try to find some relevance to the math so they’re not so scared of it, because I think it’s really important for their work in just about every discipline.

Aris: Yeah, I think there’s a big disconnect between mathematics and all the other disciplines. And again, to your point, I think it’s because everyone has their own walk with mathematics, and oftentimes it’s not a positive. So that means sometimes we get advisors outside of math who are saying, “Oh no, no, don’t take that. You don’t need that extra math class.” Or we get people who are just like, “Well, let’s just get you through math as quickly as possible,” or whatever. For me, that just means we need to be having more conversations like, “What does it look like?” I’m dreaming again. What does it look like for a designer to sit down with a math professor, or the two departments to sit and talk together and say, “Okay, well, what do you want mathematically for our students? What do you want design-wise, for our students? How do these things intersect?” And so we’ve been in a silo, mathematicians for a while. People just leave us alone. And now we see what’s happening. Math departments are closing. People are losing majors because now we thought that we could just do our own thing, serve, have our majors, but now people are really starting to ask the question, “Well, wait, the way that you’re teaching. It doesn’t feel like it’s so relevant.” For too long, we’ve asked, “Well, how am I supposed to use the quadratic equation in real life?” And actually, I don’t think we properly responded to that, because I think the proper response is that, “Oh, solving the quadratic equation is useful in cognitive agility in this way, this way, this way. And in addition to that, you’re right, [LAUGHTER] right?” Yeah, that like “Doing this exercise is helpful in these ways, and you probably won’t see it in the future.” And so that’s why we made quantitative reasoning, that’s why we have these other courses. But that took us a very long time to do that, to actually respond to people, like my school didn’t even have a quantitative reasoning class until finally, we looked at all the DFW rates and it was just like, “Well, we have to do something else.” Now, what happened there was this movement from college algebra to college algebra and quantitative reasoning didn’t have to happen, but it was a “Wait, we’re not moving on college algebra. At some point we think college algebra has to be this. And therefore, if you want these people to succeed, then we have to create this whole other space for them.” Again, as I dream, I would imagine that mathematicians as teachers would say, “Well, wait, maybe we could teach it differently,” but we didn’t do that. But I think lots of times, mathematicians and math faculty are movable objects like “No, it has to be taught this way.” And then very few people outside the discipline can come up to it and say, “Well, no, can’t you change?” And them saying, “You can’t change, because it has to be like this. We’re the experts.” But when I also think about other disciplines, I get jealous. Yeah. I mean, because, like, other disciplines get to talk about the great ideas and the systems that I’m in that I see we don’t get to talk about the great ideas. The notion of infinity is one of the great ideas that mathematics brings to the world. And so when I think about Calculus II and sequences and series, and people are going to start to groan when they listen to this, that we fail to see that we’re talking about how infinity operates, one of the many ways that infinity operates, and it’s an absolutely brilliant idea that very few people talk about because we’re too busy talking about ratio tests, and then you just get bogged down in what tests are we using, or does this have a limit? And you just forget that the notion of adding up an infinite list and getting a finite number is like so unbelievably profound. But political science gets to talk about justice, U.S. history gets to talk about the Constitution, and philosophy gets to talk about God, and over here, we have just as deep things, but we’re so tied up in procedures and making sure that you have the right minus sign. Do you see the difference that I’m bringing up? That in literature, people get to read Toni Morrison, and I’m not saying that I’m jealous that they have better things. I’m saying we have just as good things. But why is it that we are bogged down in this minutia, but they’re not critiquing Toni Morrison’s grammar. They’re just reading Toni Morrison and becoming better humans. Where is the becoming better humans in Calc I, where’s the becoming better humans in algebra? And that’s the open space that I dream of in our classes.

John: I’m hoping going forward, that we will still see students studying the Constitution in history classes. [LAUGHTER]

Aris: That’s right.

John: That may be changing in the current environment. [LAUGHTER]

Aris: I shouldn;t be laughing.. I don’t want to laugh, but I also don’t want to cry. That’s right. [LAUGHTER]

John: Sometimes we have to.

Aris: That’s right.

John: But as you’ve noted, students often come in with this fixed mindset, and they often have not had that much success in their experiences before they get to us. Should there be, perhaps, more effort in society to transform K-12 math instruction so that we don’t lose so many people from a discipline that’s so important?

Aris: I agree with that, and I think we also have to be careful. So I have no time for figure pointing, because what I’ve seen when I do professional developments all the way K through 50, whatever it is, right? As I just go, yeah, that I always see the pointing back. And so when you go to the ninth grade, it’s like, well, eighth grade, and then eighth grade it’s like, well, it’s Elementary, and then Elementary, it’s like, well, it’s the parents, and then it’s like, it’s the reverse induction, right? You just go back, well, then maybe we shouldn’t have kids at all, right? …if you want to just keep doing that. And so I think we’re all in this. And so there are two things, you come to a young person, you come to a student who’s had a bad math experience, and they’re a sophomore, and it’s the first day of class, and so you know they’ve had a bad math experience, and so you can’t send them back into K-12. They can’t go back. And so we can say, “Oh, this might be… and I have said this earlier, that this is a response of a bad math experience they had earlier.” And yes, we need to fix that. But this person’s in front of me today, and so I don’t want us to be confused that, “Oh, that this person is a lost cause.” The responsibilities on me now to create a better mathematical experience for this person and to help them as much as reasonable, and we can need to, as we were saying earlier, have conversations with K through 12. So what are real, fundamental conversations between math faculty and K through 12 faculty. And so what’s nice particularly about Oswego is that you all have the opportunity to make real connections to the K through 12 places, to schools that may feed into Oswego, and sit down with the faculty and say, “Oh, what’s happening?” I’ve seen this happen out west at Sonoma State, where they have relationships with K through 12 schools, and they’re having those types of conversations. Now, those conversations aren’t easy, because there’s status that you have to disrupt about in the space and that you just have to deal with, but once you break that stuff down, become one in community, then you can start to have real conversations about, “Oh, wait, you’re teaching this, but we’re teaching this. And so when did they end up learning this? And oh, do you really have to teach that?” Yeah, and you just have good conversations.

Rebecca: As we’ve been talking today, was thinking about an early experience I had in my teaching career where my previous institution I was invited as the non-math faculty member to join an assessment retreat and spent an entire week out of town with the math faculty, who I really didn’t know very well, and we had a great time, and found all kinds of connections between our disciplines. And for me, I think that was a really important opportunity. So I thought it was a really wonderful opportunity to collaborate across disciplines and to get a better understanding of what the faculty in that department were doing, what some of their objectives were, but also I shared what some of the art and design students, some of the struggles that they have, and I thought it was a really rewarding opportunity, and I actually had forgotten about it until this conversation. [LAUGHTER]

Aris: That is fantastic. That’s fantastic.

Rebecca: But it sounds right along the lines of what you’re advocating for as a way to share and disrupt and move things forward.

Aris: Absolutely, absolutely.

John: From society’s perspective, the rate of return to higher education, despite the popular perception, is pretty much at the highest we’ve ever seen, and that’s especially true in STEM fields. And yet, students of color, though, have been seriously underrepresented in STEM fields, perhaps partly because of underrepresentation in faculty and in their prior interactions. What strategies could be used to help reduce some of those inequities in terms of the mix of students who are entering into STEM fields?

Aris: Yeah, I mean, there are a couple of things. So this is an individual and a systemic issue. So individually, I think you have to go all the way back and say, “Well, what does it mean to be of color? What does it mean to be a student of color? What does it mean to be a person of color?” And again, the challenge is that people don’t even want to ask that question. Like, student of color or person of color, came into the vernacular at some point, and we just didn’t stop and say, “Well, wait, what does that mean?” And so when I say that I am black in the United States of America, people who are listening, what does that mean to you? If you’re listening to this five weeks from when we record and I say that I’m black, what does that mean to you? What do you think that means to me? Now I want to be clear. The reason why I ask is because when Lakeisha comes to your class, and Lakeisha is a young black woman, and you haven’t even thought about what it means to be black, then are you going to try and convince me that you’re prepared to teach Lakeisha? Do I want my daughter in your class? And the reason why I bring this up is because it means everything to me to be black, it means everything to me, and you haven’t even thought about what it is. So now I’m coming to your classroom, and there’s something fundamentally important to me, and I look at you and I already know the signs that it doesn’t mean anything to you. And so then you are already positioned to me as someone who doesn’t even care about me. And now let me step all the way back. Everybody’s nice, everybody’s a good person. Everybody’s loves their family, loves the country. Everybody’s nice, nice, nice, nice. I’m not talking about nice. I’m talking about love, actually. I’m talking about realizing the nature of the place in which we live, the United States of America, which is again a place of ultimate brilliance, but a place that also has had significant struggles, tragedy and terrorism amongst people of color and black people in particular, right? We can be both, brilliant and have terroristic backgrounds. And so for me, that’s the first thing on an individual level when we think about again, when I said earlier that we have to think about our students individually, that is tied to, “Wait, that person is black in America, that might mean A, B, C, D, and E.” Now it could mean that. It might not mean that, but sociology is a thing. Sociology is real, and the studies show that, about marginalization, how people feel. Stereotype threat, microaggressions, those things are real things. And so that means, again, we need to be educated about what that might mean. But let me take 17 seconds… that for me to be black means two things at least. It means that, again, I come from a miraculous people. I come from a group of people who have been terrorized and stigmatized for centuries in this country, and somehow, our most profound voices, our most powerful voices, are ones that are trying to teach love and justice for everybody. That’s a miracle, like somehow, like in the face of all of that ugliness, our leaders come out talking about love and justice for every single individual. Being black also means that I’m part of a social constructed category where I am not getting things that other people are getting because of skin color, and that’s personally, and that means systemically. And so both of those things are happening, are a part of who you see in me. But what that means is, when you look at someone else who is of color, then you might say, “Oh, that person’s walking around in this society, and they might be experiencing stuff just because of the color of their skin.” And again, coming back to that fundamental question, “How might that make them feel? How might they be struggling today to learn some of the stuff that I’m saying.” And most importantly, how is it that in these four walls for this hour and 15 minutes, in a space that I fully control, how is it that I can make this space different, different from what the rest of the world has told them their whole life? So that’s the personal one. Now, systemically, I’ve been thinking a lot about mentorship, and so if we have 17 students of color, 17 marginalized students in whatever category, whether it’s women in STEM also, 17 students at my institution who are part of a category, a social category, they might be black, they might be whatever, then the question for me becomes, how is it that we get them the right mentors, and that means that focused attention by someone who is ahead of them on the road for their goals, someone who is going to sit with them and look in their eyes and have them convinced that, at least for that hour of that meeting, that no one else in the world as important as they are to that person, someone who is going to awaken something within them, all potential that they didn’t even realize they had. And so when you have good mentors, then you provide pathways for people that they didn’t even think were possible. Now, of course, the challenge is, how is it that we need to train good mentors? We need to get them out there. Right now, we are not trained to be good mentors, particularly across identities, particularly across racial identities and cultural backgrounds. And so my immediate hope is that we would get mentors to people about what it means to be a STEM professional, because what mentorship also does is it gives people who are trying to get into STEM, STEM identities. It opens the doors for them to be like, “Oh, I can do this.” For 25 years, I’ve heard young people say, I saw this person, I interacted with this person, and I realized that I can do this, particularly when Ketanji became a Supreme Court justice. I just remember the very next day, a 16-year old black girl said, “Now that this has happened, a whole world has opened up for me.” I just want that to sit with the listener, that this person will never meet Ketanji. They simply need to just see her become a Supreme Court justice, and now a whole world is opened up for them. Now that’s just from 1000s of miles away. If we can somehow get mentors to each of our young people who are trying to do this, then it gives them, like this personal connection too. It makes it even powerful.

Rebecca: Some of the change that you’re talking about, the dreams that we’re dreaming together, definitely are some of the long game… [LAUGHTER]

Aris: Yes, absolutely, absolutely. Yes, yes, yes.

Rebecca: What are some of the short game moves that we can make to get to that longer game?

Aris: Yeah, so then I think it depends on who I’m talking to. So then if I’m talking to someone who’s seasoned, who’s comfortable, who is going about their life, and it’s easy, again, as we said before, I want you to say, “Well, I want to do something bold and different.” And again, I guess the first thing I would say to you is, “I want you to send your students the feedback.” We can do this in multiple ways. I want you to have some real conversations with and get some real feedback from your students about how things are going with you and whether you are doing your due diligence and uplifting people in the discipline of math. If you are new or you have little power or you’re just moving up the ranks, there’s something about also looking at your practices, but being able to get a critical mass, like just joining other people. I think this is true for the older faculty too, but just joining communities and listening to how other people teach and how other people operate in their craft, they continue to just be educated. So again, that’s on the individual level. On the systemic level, I’m looking at our leaders. So then I’m talking to department heads. I’m talking to deans and to presidents and provosts about doing more than just not rocking the boat. And so when we have young people, when we have these disparities in STEM across racial lines, that’s on you, leader. So I’m really trying to push leaders to just say, “Okay, wait, not under my watch.” 17 years from now, I want you to be able to say, “Maybe things have not change, but here are the three things that I tried and they failed, and even in the failure here the 15 things we learned,” that the too many leaders who would just come into position and just try to keep things still and when in fact, your job may be to shake things up so that more people can thrive. So I just met so many leaders that have just been like, “Let me just come and steer the boat,” when, in fact, you may need a whole new boat. You may need to be on a new river. Yeah, so I’ll say that, in that delineation, I mean on the individual level, you’ve got younger faculty, older faculty, and then they might be doing things, but then at the systemic level, our leaders need more courage. They just need more courage. And so the challenge that I have, and it goes back to what we said earlier, is that in order to get courage, you have to be compelled. There has to be a compelling reason for a leader to say, “You know what, I’m going to do the thing, and y’all are not going to like me. We’re going to make classes unified at the 1000 level for math, because this is what our students deserve. And I don’t care what you think about, because the data says that having classes that are completely different from professor to professor makes students suffer, and therefore we must unify. Let’s get to work on it together. And if you don’t like it, okay, we can talk about that too, but this is what we’re doing.” And so that person who does that is compelled by the suffering of our students. The lack of access for our students is the driving factor. There must be something that compels leaders to change, otherwise they won’t.

Rebecca: I wanted to follow up on the feedback forms because you’ve mentioned that throughout our conversation today, and for someone who’s like, “Yes, I will do this,” what would be in said feedback form?

Aris: Oh, thank you for saying that. It would be questions that if they got the answers to, it would shake them and make them really uncomfortable. The thing that I want to say, that I should have said from the beginning, is that it’s comfortable or outstanding, you only get to be one. It’s comfortable or outstanding, you only get to be one of those. And so when I created my feedback forms, and I started filling them, and I started putting in the questions, like, oh, wait, if I actually heard the real answer to this, I’m not going to feel good. And then part of me said, Well, that means it needs to go on there. And so what does that look like? That means like, “Am I doing a good job? Am I giving you everything you need? What do you want me to change?” That one’s not so bad, but it’s just like, “Did I say anything that bothered you? How is my language?” It’s just stuff that like, are you having good time, right? So that’s about me, and so how can I just be better? But then the thing that was transformational for me is when you ask anonymously, people about their lives, and just say, “What’s your biggest challenge today? What are you going through right now? What excites you the most? What do you do when you’re not in school?” So feedback forms do so much if you are authentically digging into them and asking questions that might push you out of your comfort zone, because it’ll change you forever. Because when someone says that all your math problems are binary in terms of gender, and it leaves me out, then it changes the way that I teach forever. Forever. One sentence changes the way I teach forever. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s tons of feedback forms out there, so you can go and investigate those. But for me, it’s “Okay. How am I doing?” And “Who are you as a person?” I have colleagues who give them out after tests also who have, like, logistical and utilitarian reasons for giving them out. But for me, as you might imagine from what I’ve said so far, I’m trying to figure out, am I doing a good job in humanizing you, and who are you as a human.

John: Is this something perhaps that people should do at the start of the semester, just to gather some information about who the students are in the class as well as during the class?

Aris: Yeah, you’re giving them out a lot. Yeah.

John: And you mentioned anonymity. I’ve gone back and forth on that in terms of gathering information about students. Students are likely to be more open when the forms are anonymous. On the other hand, if there’s specific concerns for specific students, there’s some benefit of knowing who the students are. And I’ve sometimes done a mix of those things, where I’ve had some things which were just anonymous and others where students let me know at the beginning of the term, in particular, if they have any special concerns or needs or any challenges they faced in classes in the past.

Aris: I appreciate that, yeah. And so I definitel moved the anonymous route. And then I will say that some of you wrote some things that I think you and I need to talk about personally, and I hope you know who you are, and say, yeah. And then I don’t know if I get any more specific than that, because of anonymity reasons, but yeah, so I try to open the door that way. But yeah, I like your idea of mixing them for sure.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

Aris: Oh, just the same old, same old. And that’s enough, [LAUGHTER] right? So, yeah, I wake up every morning with a mission, and I’m thankful for that. I’m overwhelmed by that, that I am trying to serve people. And first, it starts with my own daughter, my wife, and then I get to then interact with people who are trying to change their lives forever. When you’re in college, when you’re in the educational process, when I’m teaching in K through 12, those young people in particular don’t have the vision yet to understand the path that they’re on. But in particular college, even though some of those people have been forced to go to college, they are there and they’re trying to change the trajectory of their whole life, and to play a role in that is a gift, and I have to treat that with care. And so I wake up every morning just trying to figure out how in the world can I help that person on their educational journey. And that’s all I want to do. And so I’m in a sweet spot where I can do that every day and make a living. So I’m superbly thankful for that. So for me, in general, I’m always trying to make quantitative spaces better for everybody, because better quantitative spaces lead to better quality of lives. And so across so many different levels, if you see me, I’m either with my family, or I’m playing pickleball, or I’m trying to make quantitative spaces better for people for better quality of lives.

Rebecca: …sounds like a good balance.

Aris: Yeah, that’s right. [LAUGHTER] That’s right.

John: Well, thank you. It’s great talking to you again. And again, we really enjoyed your work here back in January during your visit.

Aris: It’s a pleasure. Thank you.

Rebecca: Thank you so much for your thought-provoking ideas.

Aris: Oh, you’re welcome. Thank you for having me.

[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]

387. Picturing Plattsburgh

Primary sources can often feel irrelevant and difficult to navigate for students. In this episode, Jessamyn Neuhaus joins us to discuss how student-created photographs can provide a personalized learning experience and foster a deeper connection to history and the university archives. 

Jessamyn is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. Prior to this, she served as Director of the SUNY Plattsburgh Center for Teaching Excellence and was also a Professor in the History Department at SUNY Plattsburgh. Jessamyn is the author of Geeky Pedagogy: a Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to be Effective Teachers and the editor of Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases about Faculty and Increasing Student Learning. See is also the editor of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods. Jessamyn also regularly serves as keynote speaker and workshop facilitator.

Show Notes

  • Neuhaus, J. (2019). Geeky pedagogy: A guide for intellectuals, introverts, and nerds who want to be effective teachers. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
  • Neuhaus, J. (2022). Picture a professor: Interrupting biases about faculty and increasing student learning. West Virginia University Press.
  • Picturing Plattsburgh Project
  • Horii, Cassandra Volpe, and Martin Springborg. (2022). What Teaching Looks Like: Higher Education Through Photographs. Elon University Center for Engaged Learning.
  • Cassandra Volpe Hori and Martin Springborg (2022). What Teaching Looks Like. Tea forTeaching podcast. Episode 262. November 8.
  • Neuhaus, Jessamyn (2025). Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom. The University of Oklahoma Press..
  • Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Ed Series, The University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Laurel Willingham-McLain and Jacques Safari Mwayaona (2025). Students as Partners. Tea for Teaching Podcast. Episode 376. January 16. (the podcast that Jessamyn referred to with her colleagues at Syracuse University)

Transcript

John: Primary sources can often feel irrelevant and difficult to navigate for students. In this episode, we look at how using photographs provides a personalized learning experience and fosters a deeper connection to history and the university archives.

[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 Jessamyn Neuhaus. Jessamyn is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. Prior to this, she served as Director of the SUNY Plattsburgh Center for Teaching Excellence and was also a Professor in the History Department at SUNY Plattsburgh. Jessamyn is the author of Geeky Pedagogy: a Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to be Effective Teachers and the editor of Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases about Faculty and Increasing Student Learning. See is also the editor of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods. Jessamyn also regularly serves as keynote speaker and workshop facilitator. Welcome back, Jessamyn. It’s great to see you again..

Jessamyn: Thank you. It’s great to be here.

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

Jessamyn: I’m not drinking tea, but I am drinking some water out of my mug that, written on the side, it tells me you’re doing great, so I’m drinking positivity. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Love it.

John: We could all use more positivity.

Rebecca: How about you, John?

John: Based on your recommendation quite a while ago, I am drinking Brodie’s Scottish afternoon tea today.

Rebecca: Oh, I’m so jealous. You know why I am jealous, John, because I have a cup of it sitting on my desk [LAUGHTER] because I accidentally grabbed my bottle of water instead. Oops. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Whoops.

John: So what are you drinking, Rebecca?

Rebecca: I’m drinking this bottle of water [LAUGHTER] that I brought because I forgot my tea on my desk.

John: We do have some teas here. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: So, I’ll have to have some later. I have failed as a host. [LAUGHTER] I’m sorry.

John: It’s your turn. [LAUGHTER]

John: So, we’ve invited you here to talk about the Picturing Plattsburgh project that you conducted in your history course at SUNY Plattsburgh during the spring 2024 semester. We saw you had posted about this on LinkedIn, I believe it was. Can you tell us a little bit about this project?

Jessamyn: Sure, this was for the intro history class, the U.S. history survey at Plattsburgh. It’s 1877 to the present, and for people who teach these history survey classes, there’s a lot of challenges in trying to cover a huge amount of just sort of content and material, helping to try to make it relevant to students, and also just things like materials, like textbooks and preconceptions that students bring in about what studying history means, most of them incorrect. So those were all kinds of challenges that were in my mind. I also was fortunate that semester it was going to be a small group, which was not usually the case for surveys. So I started thinking about what could I do in the way of assessing student learning while also encouraging relevance and meaning for the content? And I was interested, and very interested in the unessay projects and helping students demonstrate their learning and skills in a variety of ways. So all those factors led me to think about what kind of final project we could work on, what sort of research project. I came up with the Picturing Plattsburgh first thinking about when I was writing the little blurb for the catalog, thinking about how in any kind of textbook or any kind of lecture or any kind of material where students are looking up information about the past, they always look at the photographs first. Or really, everybody does that, not just students. People do that. They’re interesting. So they look at the photos first. And I had also started thinking about, what does it mean to teach history in our current historical moment when accessing even facts about the past can pose a real challenge, again, for students, but for everybody. And AI had just started to really make its way into higher education discourse, and I was thinking about, well, what about photographs that are generated by AI? How can I help students develop some of the skills they’re going to need out in the world to access reliable photographic evidence of events that have happened. So that was all my sort of background thinking that led me to the project.

Rebecca: You started talking a little bit about why you chose photos as a focus. Can you talk about how you use it as a primary source material in this class.

Jessamyn: Sure, I really wanted to give these students the opportunity to do the thing really that so many historians love, which is examine primary sources, look at the leftovers from the past and try to make sense and meaning out of the past. Photographs are not necessarily simple primary sources. There’s a lot of complexity to them, but it’s the kind of complexity that we in 2025 might be more equipped to grapple with: whe complexities of analyzing a snapshot moment in time visually requires different critical thinking skills than combing through a 19th-century document. And so I thought photographs would be a way to help students do this without overwhelming them with the kind of abilities that you would have to bring to try to understand… they say the past is a foreign country… like trying to navigate the foreign country of the past. I also thought there could be a real opportunity here for students to look at photographs of where they were right this minute, SUNY Plattsburgh. I had thought about ways to help students feel more connected to the university, that they belong there, and that the resources in the library where the Center for Teaching Excellence, where I was working, where it was situated, these resources, they are there for the students. The students’ tuition helps pay for them. And I wanted them to know and understand that the Special Collections in our Feinberg library are there for you to use. The resources are there for you to mine. So I decided I wanted to have students first go to the special collections. We would arrange ahead of time a visit to the special collections. The Special Collections librarian, an archivist, would collect photographs from the many, many collections of SUNY Plattsburgh life, things that had happened on campus, events, student life, speakers, meetings, things that had happened there on the campus. Debra Kimok was the librarian. She would prepare those ahead of time. I’d bring the students, and I gave them a sheet with some questions, and then they got to choose and look through some of these photographs. There were some of some early sporting events, really there were photographs covering the whole history of SUNY Plattsburgh. We spent a few classes there, and then their assignment was to take some photographs of SUNY Plattsburgh right now, their experience of SUNY Plattsburgh, trying to help them see the continuity and the differences between their own day-to-day experiences and what they had seen looking at photographs in the past. We decided together, as a class, that everybody did three photos, and we decided as a class which ones to select for permanent digital exhibit about their perspectives and experiences as students in 2024 at SUNY Plattsburgh.

Rebecca: That sounds really fun, Jessamyn.

Jessamyn: It was very, very fun. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: I did a project in our Special Collections using photographs too. And it was a really great experience for students, because most of them had never been to Special Collections before. I remember them getting excited about seeing like, “Oh, this is what snow looked like at this time,” versus like the fact that we had, in that year, no snow, barely at all. It was really fun to see them light up and understand the space that they were in a really different way.

Jessamyn: That’s absolutely right. I would say one of the things that it did really successfully was de-mystify what special collections are, what their function is. We went a couple times, and the first time we went, the students were pretty tentative. They came in slowly. They were really hesitant, but the second visit, they walked right in, they started looking through the photos. They asked the librarian for some more here and there. So it seemed to really empower them to do something that we in a U.S. History class would be uniquely qualified to help them, do not just U.S. history, but anybody interested in accessing these materials and really help them feel like they belonged there in the space doing that kind of work.

John: One of the things you mentioned in the write up of this is just how memorable historic photos are. I was thinking when I read that back to when I was studying history sometime in the last century and remembering things like the newspaper that Truman held up saying Dewey wins or similar, types of things. That lasts much longer than specific recollection of a lot of the content of the text that we read at the time. What makes these photos so memorable to students or to any of us?

Jessamyn: Well, I’m not an expert in the kind of visual knowledge and visual study of the past via images. That’s not necessarily my expertise and focus. I come at it from a little bit of a different angle. My sense was less trying to understand why certain photos become so etched in our memory. When I started, I thought that would be one of the things I was going to be looking at and having students discuss. But it quickly became more obvious to me that I wanted them to really explore the idea of the importance of documenting ordinary life, ordinary day-to-day life, and the way that photographs provide insight into that, that many other sources cannot. So I absolutely agree there’s ways that photographs capture major events, historical turning points, but they also, for those of us who really want to try to understand, what was it like to be alive at a certain time, looking at photographs is one way that we can try to get our heads around what was it like to walk down the street? What were people wearing? What was it like to walk into a house? And for the students, I really wanted them to think about what was it like to go to a basketball game at different points in time. What would have been like to live in a dorm and to translate that then into what they were doing, what they were able to do, because now everybody has a camera with them all the time, [LAUGHTER] and I’m old enough to remember that was not always the case, but now it is. So having them rethink some of the implications or possibilities of their own day-to-day life and the way it could be recorded in a photograph.

John: And I mentioned that photo of Truman, but I was also thinking of photos from the Great Depression, food lines, and people in poverty. It creates a much deeper sense of connection than just reading about it, I think.

Jessamyn: I think historical empathy is definitely a skill we would love for undergraduate students to be able to develop. And yes, definitely photos are one way to do that. It also had a lot of power, I thought, because as we were doing this project, we were also in the open source textbook that we were using, we also were focusing our discussions around the photographs and students. I found when we went to Special Collections, when we looked at the photos in the textbook, they were looking for photos that resonated for them in some way with their own experiences, their own identities or backgrounds, experiences, families, interests. So yes, historical empathy, anything to help them feel more connected to the material we were looking at and using.

Rebecca: Definitely sounds like a really empowering project, both as kind of creators, investigators, etc.

Jessamyn: Yeah, I think it was. I’ll add that it was interesting in the Special Collections and in what the students chose to take photographs of that the classroom did not appear very often, and it was interesting how something that really has a disproportionate impact on what students do and how they feel [LAUGHTER] and if they’re successful at the college and university, that there are so few photographs taken of it, really at any point in time.

John: Maybe that’s because they were so busy [LAUGHTER] focusing on their educational activities in the classroom…

Jessamyn: …maybe so…

John: …that they didn’t want to distract themselves with photographs. That would be nice to think.[LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Yeah, well, there were issues. We had to be cautious. We did not want any photograph of anyone who did not want their photograph to appear in a possible online exhibit. So that was another reason. Students wouldn’t just be snapping photos of their work in their classes, but they did include some photographs of like group projects outside of class, work they did outside of class, meeting up with people in the computer lab, and stuff like that.

Rebecca: So can you talk a little bit about what some of the learning outcomes for the project were? You’ve hinted at some of them. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Yeah, sure. So the class had standard learning outcomes for our general education requirements, and I connected work we were doing to those as well, but in addition, I had four learning outcomes specific to that section and our work together: use photographs, so by the end of our class, you will be able to use photographs as primary sources to increase your own understanding of life and events in the United States from 1877 to today; identify what information you need about a photograph and its historical context when you are using photos as primary sources; explain how photographs as primary sources document diverse American Identities, including how some groups experienced bias and discrimination, and work to create change from 1877 to today; and then finally, apply what you’ve learned about photographs as primary sources to document life on campus at SUNY Plattsburgh, particularly the diverse identities of our students, faculty, and staff.

John: So, could you talk about some of the projects that students did and how they realized those learning objectives?

Jessamyn: Well, the reading and reflection they did on each section in the textbook, they were choosing photographs from those sections and reflecting on them to make progress and student learning outcomes, one, two, and three. So they had a reflection journal. They talked and reflected on how the photographs documented diverse experiences, what they needed to know about the source of a photograph… in this open access textbook, you could trace it back to where did the editor access this photograph. How do we know that it is what it says it is? And also looking at the way photographs from the American past document a wide range and diversity of experiences and including people working to enact a social change. The final one was the one that they took photographs, discussed why they would be a good addition to our online exhibit. So we had a shared Google slides that everybody put at least three photographs that they had taken, and then we talked about them as a class and chose which ones we wanted to include for the final exhibit.

Rebecca: So how did students respond to this project?

Jessamyn: So I did a poster on this project for the American Historical Association annual meeting. And in addition to looking at their assignments, I did a post-project survey, and they were aware I might use their answers in this poster. There was some strong success. And then there was a couple things that it did not work as well as I wanted it to work. [LAUGHTER] So I’ll start with that one. The way that the project didn’t succeed as much as I wanted it to was the historical aspect of it. I asked students if, after the project, were they going to be more aware of how historians use photos to understand the past, and it was 10 students who completed the survey, and only three of them said it definitely would do that. However, there were some things and what I think is worth thinking across disciplines, and the takeaways for people in all kinds of classes doing all kinds of projects. The thing that they really responded most positively to was it was their term. I didn’t say it, it was their term that I saw repeatedly. They called it the hands-on aspect of the project. And I think what they were getting at there was that they felt like they were doing things even beyond just the fact we got out of the classroom to watch a special collections, and even beyond the fact that they were taking photos themselves, the overall project gave them a sense of doing something together and working towards this goal, this shared goal, and they responded very, very, very positively to that. And really, I think that’s a strong takeaway thinking about our course design and how we assess student learning and the ways a lot of us are really striving to help students build connections with each other while helping them build these academic skills. And so that idea of an active learning approach, a student-centered approach, they clearly responded to that. They also, in the post-program survey and in other kinds of discussions I had with them, they felt very positive or were interested in looking at photographs of their college campus from the past. They found that interesting. They definitely understand what Special Collections is now. [LAUGHTER] It’s not this weird term they’ve never heard of. And the other thing that it did really well was, I do think almost just in the process of doing it, even if some of them couldn’t quite articulate this, but their work showed that they understood that thing that I was saying I was really hoping they would get, which is that photographs of ordinary life are significant and important. And the other thing that worked really well, we talked about why they could trust that the photographs that were in the textbook were reliable, that they were what they said they were by tracing them back to often Library of Congress. And every time they did that, I would remind them we can trust that this photograph is what it says it is, because the actual real one that you hold in your hand that was taken is at the Library of Congress, like our Special Collections and the people who work there, it is their job to make sure it is what it says it is, and their job depends on it. If they misrepresent it, if they try to falsify something, they’ll get fired. And then we backed it up by then going to Special Collections. So students did actually experience, which so few, not just students, like so few people now, to have the experience of putting your hand on the thing instead of seeing it on the screen. So all those things together, I feel confident that many of the students left with a better understanding of what questions do we need to ask about a photograph to verify that it is what it says it is.

John: And this strikes me as being a type of authentic learning experience which is not vulnerable to AI. And you mentioned AI at the beginning as one of the factors in putting this together. Could you talk just a little bit about that aspect of the project?

Jessamyn:Yeah, I think the concept that I was thinking about, or I would say maybe the principle, the teaching practice, the principle that I was operating from, is that I always want to convey to students that their ideas matter. It’s my strength as an instructor. Dynamic lecturing is not my strength. Being a super lovey dovey is not my strength. [LAUGHTER] But what I’m really, really good at doing and students get right away from me, is that I’m very fascinated in their thinking, and I really value their ideas, and I want to empower them to be able to share their ideas and explain their ideas and write about their ideas in my class and beyond. So the starting point was that, to the student, your experience of being a student at SUNY Plattsburgh is important. It’s valuable. I value it. I want other people to value it. We’re going to put it in a archive. We’re going to put it in a digital collection that’s going to be there and available for anyone who goes to the SUNY Plattsburgh library digital collections forever. So all that is to say that it wasn’t taking an approach of, well, I know that AI is unlikely to generate a photograph of a student at the convenience store at SUNY Plattsburgh or a student’s my cat sitting in the dorm window, but more that students wouldn’t need or want to offload that work, because it matters to them. It was their experience. It was important to them. I mean, it’s not just students. Everybody looks for a shortcut. Our brains look for a shortcut, especially when we think it’s not worth our time. Nobody goes out of their way to spend more time doing things they think are unimportant. Our brains are too smart for that. They say “No, no, what’s the least amount of work I can do [LAUGHTER] to get this done?” So I think it makes total sense to ask students to do work that could help them achieve the learning outcomes, but gives them some choice and some way to make it meaningful for them. That was the other thing they said in the survey. They clearly said that they appreciated having some choice, so they got to choose what to take photos of, and then we worked together to choose the final ones.

Rebecca: That autonomy piece seems incredibly important, as does this idea of being a part of something bigger, because we’re working on like a collective collection and putting things together so they were depending on one another to be successful as well.

Jessamyn: Yeah, I know that, and some other things I did in class really emphasized that your colleagues need you to attend and participate. And I did hear from several students who said something along the lines of it had never occurred to me that my being in class would help another student. I think a lot about academic agency and the idea that as a student, I am an active participant in my education, my success is not dependent on other people, like mainly the professor. I have agency and power to do well. It’s hard to build those skills as a student, especially a newer student. It was an interesting class. There was one senior, and then there was a couple second-semester first-year students. And it was the kind of project where I could see some difference, as in a couple years of working on building that academic agency.

John: And one nice aspect of it is in, I believe it was the words of David Wiley, it’s not one of those disposable assignments [LAUGHTER] where students submit something and they never see it again after the end of the semester. It has a life that lasts beyond that, which gives it much more intrinsic value.

Jessamyn: I think so. Of course, I’m a big archive nerd, so I was, like, really hyped up on the fact it was going to be there forever. I don’t know that that necessarily registered with all the students. I have a feeling it might be one of those things that students do it and then it may take a while to kind of percolate and figure out, “Ph, it’s still there. Oh, look at that.’ [LAUGHTER] I certainly hope it’s around… I believe it should be there for a long time. And if they were to have their children thinking about college or going to college, and this is something that they could show their families, “This is a photograph I took of my dorm, of some friends of mine, of track practice,” [LAUGHTER] it would be very cool.

Rebecca: It’s fun to think about for sure. So one of the things that it sounds like it was important to this project is some of the aesthetic components, or the skill of taking photographs and things that are maybe outside of the historical discipline that you’re in and might take advantage of other skill sets that folks have, but others might feel like they have a deficit in that space. How did you negotiate that with students?

Jessamyn: I am lucky, either just by luck of the draw or the way I conveyed it, they were not worried about that, which was great. They were not worried about that. And maybe it kind of goes to the fact that they were really getting that intended point that just ordinary photographs of ordinary life can tell us so much. Because I will say, and I do write about this in the introduction to the exhibit, these are not highly artistic or professionally crafted photos, even not especially revealing journalistic photographs. They’re really casual and ordinary, even to the point students usually refer to them as pictures. They’re pictures they took. They were taken almost all… there was one person who took some photos with a camera, otherwise it was with their smartphones. None of them, except this semester, was the semester of the total solar eclipse. So with the exception of the total solar eclipse, none of the photos document any exceptionally rare or groundbreaking events. But when you look at them as a whole, they really reveal day-to-day details about life for undergraduate students at Plattsburgh in 2024: the way they socialized, the way they studied, the way they got food, the way they did laundry. And for me, looking at them as a professor, as a parent myself, they do reflect what I see as the hopes and the challenges, the bonds and the aims and desires of our students to do well and succeed and make progress in their life.

Rebecca: Reminds me a lot of some storytelling projects that I’ve heard of, even with kids, and things where you put cameras in the hands of kids to document their daily life to see what it’s like through their eyes, it has a feeling similar to that. And in that respect, I can understand how the aesthetic piece, like drops back as not being important.

Jessamyn: Yeah, they wrote descriptions of the photos, captions, and sort of summary from the photographer’s standpoint, of what’s going on in the photograph, thinking about that historical context piece again.

John: It sounds like a wonderful project, and for students who grew up using Instagram [LAUGHTER] as their primary social media, it seems like a very natural environment for them to be working in.

Jessamyn: Yeah, they did not worry about taking photographs with their phone, that’s for sure.

John: This discussion reminds me a little bit of a podcast we did with Martin Springborg and Cassandra Volpe Hori, who created a book called What Teaching Looks Like. It was, and we can include a link to the podcast we did with them as a link in our show notes. In their book, they captured pictures of day-to-day teaching interactions at many different institutions for much the same reason: to use imagery to represent the interactions that were occurring at that point in time in those specific places. One other thing we should ask about is that, when we last talked to you on the podcast, you were at SUNY Plattsburgh, now you’re at Syracuse. Could you talk a little bit about your new position there?

Jessamyn: Sure, and I’m so glad to have the opportunity to talk about Picturing Plattsburgh one more time, because this was the last class I taught at Plattsburgh after 19 years there, so it was a very bittersweet experience for me, doing the project and working with the students there for the last time. I so, so enjoyed working with SUNY Plattsburgh students, and like I say in the acknowledgement to my new book, sorry for all the mistakes I made, [LAUGHTER] and thank you for sharing your ideas with me, SUNY Plattsburgh students. I started the new role here at Syracuse University in August of 2024. I am the Director of their Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. We’re a small but mighty center and doing a lot of collaborations with a lot of new people. You’ve actually had two of my colleagues on the Tea for Teaching podcast to talk about our Students Consulting on Teaching Program, which is one of our signature programs here at the CTLE.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next, Jessamyn?

Jessamyn: Well, I’m so glad you asked, because I’m hoping to come back pretty soon when my new book comes out. It’s called Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom. It’s going to be published in the University of Oklahoma press series, Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Ed, and I hope it will be available for pre-order very soon, March/April 2025.

John: We’re looking forward to that. We heard some of the earlier discussions about that on other podcasts, and we’re really glad to see it coming out. And I think we can learn a lot from [LAUGHTER] those experiences.

Rebecca: Well, it’s always a pleasure. Jessamyn, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much for having me,

John: …and we hope to be talking to you very soon [LAUGHTER] about Snafu Edu.

Jessamyn: I’ll be there.

[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]

376. Students as Partners

Faculty members often design and revise courses with limited direct feedback from students. In this episode, Laurel Willingham-McLain and Jacques Safari Mwayaona join us to discuss a program in which faculty work with trained student consultants to improve the student learning experience.  Laurel is a consulting faculty developer at the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Syracuse University. Jacques is a Faculty Development Fellow, also at Syracuse University. Laurel and Jacques both work with the Students Consulting on Teaching program at Syracuse University.

Transcript

John: Faculty members often design and revise courses with limited direct feedback from students. In this episode, we discuss a program in which faculty work with trained student consultants to improve the student learning experience.

[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 Laurel Willingham-McLain and Jacques Safari Mwayaona. Laurel is a consulting faculty developer at the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Syracuse University. Jacques is a Faculty Development Fellow, also at Syracuse University. Laurel and Jacques both work with the Students Consulting on Teaching program at Syracuse University. Welcome, Laurel and Jacques.

Laurel: Thank you.

Jacques: Thank you.

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

Laurel: I am drinking tea and I am drinking Throat Coat with lemon echinacea and honey, because I’ve been congested for about two months. Allergies are great in Maryland.

John: And Jacques?

Jacques: Well, I am drinking today a black tea with lemon lift. And as you can hear, it was a little bit hard for me to kind of pronounce the whole name. There is a fun thing that I found in American culture about food and the naming of the food. Most of the time they will give the full name and even the ingredients in the food that you are getting. And sometimes it will be like, ice cream. There’s so many variety of ice cream I cannot even name, so I really find that’s really, really interesting and really fun.

Rebecca: One of my favorite parts about the podcast is finding out all the interesting things that people are drinking, for sure. Today I have English afternoon, John.

John: And I have a spring cherry green tea today, continuing with the ongoing cherry tea flavor discussion.

Rebecca: Yeah,the tea smells good but tastes terrible, yes. [LAUGHTER] So we’ve invited you here to discuss your work on the Students Consulting on Teaching Program at Syracuse. Can you talk about when this program started and what the goal of the program is?

Laurel: So we piloted this program in the spring of 2023 with just two partnerships, and our goal is to have short-term partnerships between a faculty member and a student consultant who is trained to help faculty gather learner feedback. And so the idea is for the student consultants and the faculty together to imagine small, meaningful changes that they can make right away in their courses. We call it SCOT for short, and I just have to give a shout out. We built on the work of others. We took the name from Ursula Sorensen’s program at Brigham Young University, and we took a lot of input from Adriana Signorini, our dear colleague at UC Merced. And I also just want to say that if anyone’s interested in this work, the Special Interest Group Co-creating and Partnerships through the POD Network is your go to place. Jacques and I are so supported by them.

John: Suppose that a faculty member wishes to get some feedback on their class. Could you walk us through the steps of how this process works?

Laurel: So, the Center for Teaching and Learning excellence advertises that we have partnerships available through our newsletter, through New Faculty Orientation, through word of mouth. And so they get invited, and they register, they sign up at the very beginning of the semester to be a partner. And then Jacques and I meet with them very briefly, and our director, Jessamyn Neuhaus, gives a great shout out of her support. We work with them on the three methods that we’re going to be using, that they can choose from, and what their expectations are in terms of time commitment and their commitment to the student consultant.

Jacques: If I may add something there, I think the part of commitment and know what they are expecting, the expectations, is really, really important part. Because knowing what would be the time they will be giving to the program and what they could expect from student consultants is a very good, important part. Because sometimes you might have faculty, it would be maybe their first time they’re working with student consultants in a professional setting, let’s say, viewing students as collaborators. And it’s really, really important that we have that part of helping them to know what to expect from those students.

Rebecca: You mentioned that there’s three ways that a student consultant can work with a faculty member. Can you talk us through what those three ways are?

Laurel: Sure. So for each of these ways, we expect about three to four hours of faculty commitment over a month in the middle of the semester, and they can choose from among: observation of the class, small group instructional feedback, which we loosely call focus groups, even though it’s not technically a focus group, and early course surveys. For each of these methods, the student consultant meets first with the faculty partner to explore what their teaching interest or issue is and which method might be best. And together, they come to that decision, then they administer it, and then there’s a debriefing meeting, and then there’s a final report written.

Jacques: In our recruitment process for faculty, when we send them an invitation, we kind of propose them already those three methods, and they can choose from them, or they can choose that they’re not sure yet. And when they meet with the student consultant, since the student consultant is already trained to understand those methods and also to know what is the situation or to understand or to grasp the perfect method to use in a particular situation, during the first meeting that student consultant have with their faculty partners, they kind of confront their two views… I shouldn’t say, actually confront… it’s about mutual understanding. Discuss, exchanging ideas, and they come to an agreement which method they should use. So even though the faculty might have chosen to use class visits, for example, in the discussions they can discuss, and they say, okay, yeah, this will be just an early class survey, and they go with early class survey. So it’s always this understanding on where’s the need and try to meet the offer of method that we have for them.

John: How are students selected to participate in this program?

Jacques: Yeah, I can speak to that since I am the one working almost all the time with students, and Laurel dedicates more time to faculty, and I dedicate more time to students, like 70% to students, 20% to faculty for me, 70% to faculty for Laura, and 20% to students. So the way we try to select our students is we have two categories of students. We have the first-timers, those students who come for the first time to the program, and we recruit them through, most of the time, sending invitations or collaborating with other research units around the campus. And yeah, I can shout out to our first-year seminar program, which has sent to us very good candidates. And we also try to use, or maybe have our advocates, which are the past faculty who did this program, or past student consultants who found this program interesting, and they kind of recommended their friend or former student to come to the program. For those first-timers, normally, they go through an interview for us to try to understand, what are their class schedule, and if they are a good fit for the program. And there is a second category of students, which is mostly the returning students, and that is the biggest number that we have, because when students get into this program, they love it, and they stay until they graduate from Syracuse University. So the big number of student consultants are mostly those who are returning from past semester, and they stay and continue working with the program because of the value they get from it. And to date, we have had 24 unique student consultants. When I say unique consultants, I mean that counting once by name, but most of them return. And for those 24 unique students, we have had, like, more than 1000 of enrolled students impacted, which is kind of a ratio of one student consultant for more than 40 enrolled students impacted, which is huge for us.

Rebecca: What kind of training are you providing these students to get them up to speed and ready to work with faculty to give them this consulting capabilities?

Jacques: That’s a great question, actually, because of the diversity of students we get into the program, students come from all over the campus, and so far, we had had like students coming from the seven schools out of the 13 schools that we have here on campus, and most of them are double majors. So there’s a huge diversity of student consultants that we have. So now the training that we use to give them is two to four weeks of training, very compact training, and the training is about the methods that Laurel mentioned earlier, namely the early course feedback, class observation visits, small group instructional design, and we help them to rate, to understand the method, and also to practice. There’s so much role-playing that we do in the program for them to understand how this can work out, and most importantly, is also to train, and help them to shift their view from the relationships that they had with faculty which is mostly vertical, if I can say so, vertical relationship. Now they have to shift into a relationship, a more professional relationship, with faculty that they will be working with. So I think that is one of the most important training that we provide them with, so that when they go into the field, they start talking with the faculty as consultants, not only as students, but also as student and consultant at the same time to provide consulting to faculty.

John: How have faculty responded to this process?

Laurel: It’s a growing interest, largely through word of mouth, and then now that Jessamyn Neuhaus is our director, she is making this a focus of our center, that there will be different kinds of partnerships, of which SCOT (students consulting on teaching) is just one. And so many people are curious, because it’s a very different kind of relationship. It’s different from any other relationship they have at the university. So at first it was a little difficult to recruit, but I think we’re going to have more than we can accommodate soon.

Rebecca: How many faculty have you had participating in a typical year?

Laurel: There’s no typical year. Across the four semesters, we’ve had 32 unique faculty partners in 37 partnerships, and they represent, just like the students, they represent seven of the 13 schools and also a study abroad program. So we piloted with two in spring 2023. In fall 2024 we had the incredible privilege of having a cohort of about nine faculty from Design Studio in the School of Architecture, and together they debriefed, and together they planned on how to get student feedback. And that was really exciting. And then in spring 2024 we had eight separate partnerships, not a cohort model. And this fall, in 2024 we’ve had 16. So it has varied.

John: Participating in this as a student consultant takes a fair amount of time. Is there some type of compensation provided to the students who serve in this consulting role?

Jacques: Yes, actually, this is a paid position for student consultants, and there’s actually a good budget that is being allocated to this program. I think the university, and mostly we should be grateful to our new director who’s really working to expand this program, and the value that the university is giving to this program. We think the budget will continue to grow and we will be able to accommodate more students. And in addition to that financial or monetary benefit they get, there’s a huge professional experience they get from this, which is more than money. Many of them actually have reported, actually, growth professionally from when they got into this program, and when they leave the program. They’ve grown a lot, and that can be even seen in the reports that they do when they finish this program. It is really a very short program, but it’s really powerful in terms of the skills that it provides students in this small period of time and empowering the students to believe in themselves and what they can provide. And also so many students who have this consulting component in their programs, and when they come into the SCOT program, they kind of practice, they kind of learn or grow those skills that they need and put them into the consulting work. I see the students coming, for example, from human services, from business, from marketing, data analytics, or public policy and other fields who really need this consulting part of their training. And when they come into this program, they love it, because they start practicing, they start seeing faculty who are their “client”, and we can see how they interact with them. So this is kind of a push for them to practice the skills and already to be into the professional enivronment. So it’s not only finance, it’s also those skills that they get. Moreover, that also, I think, is really important to mention about those students who are former student consultants, who got good admission into good graduate schools after this program. Because I guess showing that you’ve been practicing your skills while you are still at university, kind of show how committed you are to your growth into academia and professional world. So yeah, that is also another important part that the students gain from this program.

Rebecca: One of the things that each of the student consultants is doing, no matter what method they’re doing, is some data collection. They’re either observing, they’re running focus group like activities, or they’re doing surveys, and then they’re consolidating that information into a report and providing that back to the faculty and debriefing. Is there some bigger data that’s being collected about the program itself, to measure the impact of the program?

Laurel: You know your timing is just beautiful, Rebecca, because I am elbow deep in data, in findings, in information from our people. It’s very emotional for me because of what they’re saying. So we keep track of the numbers. You saw that. 37 partnerships, 32 faculty, 24 unique student consultants and over 1000 enrolled students impacted, but most importantly, we gather the stories and the experiences. And so with the student consultants, we had a three-step process, a survey that they responded to individually, Jacques and I lifted out themes and places where we needed clarification and met with them in their weekly student consultant meeting to look at things that weren’t clear to us. For example, how Teams is organized, so it’s clear to them where to put their tracking and documentation from their consultations. Another one was what their final report should look like. And so we got clarification on two or three or four topics from the individual survey, and that was the program-level view. What should we keep? What should we change? How’s the onboarding? How’s the middle section? How’s the support? And then Jacques and I met individually with each of the 11 student consultants for about 15, 20 minutes to find out what the experience was like for them, how it fits their future goals, how we can be better in supporting them and who they recommend. And so Jacques already said that they emphasize communication skills, that just immediately comes to their lips when you ask, what has this program provided for you in terms of your personal growth. And then professionalism. Like he said, the opportunity to consult, getting a window into the life of faculty, which helps them as students in their own courses, as well. Collaboration and also this semester, a new thing was that their relationship with one another changed. So we had two different groups come into the SCOT program that were already very close friends, and they, on their own, brought up the fact that they see each other differently now. They’re not just football watching buddies or sorority sisters at breakfast together, but now they go to each other for professional consulting and mentoring for one another, like, how shall I solve this communication problem with Professor Jones? What’s a question that would get at this kind of issue, and that was exciting for us to see their relationships with one another growing. And then I could talk about faculty. So we debrief the faculty in pairs, again, 15, 20 minutes online, and we do that so they can learn from each other. So many times over the past few years, we’ve heard faculty say, “Oh, I thought I was the only one who was dealing with this issue with my students”, or “I was really curious to know what my student consultant partner was doing with another faculty member,” and they embrace the importance of the student perspective. For example, two or three of them talked about how they thought their enrolled students weren’t engaged in class because they were bored and they found out that they were nervous. There were things that they needed to do to prepare the soil for engagement. Another person found out that her group of students had been away on study abroad since the prerequisite course, and so they’d forgotten and so they weren’t ready to engage in the class in a way that would show that they had forgotten the basics. And so now she’s incorporating some basic review into that. A second way is that they can be vulnerable with a student in a way that they can’t be vulnerable with their faculty colleagues. And one woman even said, “You know, we tend to complain as faculty colleagues, but then I have this student consultant who’s here to help me and to affirm my work, and is in solidarity with me. And we don’t complain. We just work on getting things better,” that the student consultants help the faculty partners think of survey or small focus-group questions that they would never have thought of on their own, so they really collaborate in that. And then two or three people this semester talked about how they’d been wanting to make changes in their teaching, but they just never made time for it, but because they had this really short timeline of meeting, working, meeting, and report, they got stuff done that they’d never gotten done before, and now they have homework. One woman said “my slides need to be so much better,” and another faculty member said “my assignments need to be better.” And so I am going to find out if it would be okay this next semester for them to start at the very beginning of the semester and work on those two issues that they had talked about with previous student consultants. Two people had students look at their online materials, and one person gave us this beautiful quote that “their student consultant served, not only as a sounding board, but as someone that they could spell out their thoughts and doubts and questions too, but also a link between them and online learning.” For example, she found out, and this probably won’t surprise a lot of people, but our students don’t really read their emails. They don’t prioritize them, and in fact, if you’re working with a faculty member, you need to. So the student consultant helped the faculty partner be able to communicate with the enrolled students about how important communication would happen in that class. And then finally… you can tell, I’ve just been reading these… finally, they get a much stronger response rate on the early course surveys, and they can ask their own specific questions. And we have one faculty member and student consultant who have institutional review board approval to write about their project and to ask very specific questions about teaching techniques. So those are just some of the ways it’s been fruitful for faculty, and I’m excited to share those hot off the press findings with you.

Jacques: Just to add an idea about the exciting parts of the learning between faculty and students, I think Laurel mentioned some where the student could open a window into the faculty instructor’s world, and that really made a huge difference in the lives of the students. So the student understood how much work the instructors and everyone working to help them, put into the preparation of material, put into trying to help students learn. So even the worries that faculty have when they see their students not doing well, and although that actually helps students to understand how much faculty care about students. In the results, we saw some student consultants considering becoming themselves instructors or faculty in the future, which is very unusual for students who are still undergrad or the students studying at the university, to start thinking already how they could become faculty themselves.

John: You’ve already talked a little bit about plans to perhaps expand the program to reach more faculty and more students. Do you have any other plans in terms of future directions of this program?

Jacques: Yes, actually, with our new director, we have been discussing this a lot, and we are planning to expand more this program, making it efficient when we’re expanding, because when we expand, there will be so many challenges coming into the program. And one way we are thinking of making this program efficient is about time management. Since this is an early course mini course, one way of seeing what’s going on and see how we could improve the learning of the students. Time has always been a challenge, so starting as early as possible can help faculty to know what’s going on in the classroom and implement the results of the student consultant will be communicating to them. So this semester, and next semester, we’ll be focusing on how we can make this training efficient. And instead of having that two to four weeks training while the semester has already started, we are trying to move that training online within an asynchronous program, so that the students who are recruited this semester can start already training themselves during the winter break or summer so that they can start working when the semester starts. So when they finish the training, they can start working with faculty on day one, the first week of the semester, they can start already interacting with faculty. This semester, we are really blessed to have our student consultants coming back. So the student consultants who are in the program, most of them are staying because they want to do again next semester. So we are blessed because we’ll be using their expertise to go through the training that we have moved online. They can go through it, give us feedback on how we could improve it and make it better for the next semester. So this semester, the point that we are focusing on is time management, and we are moving all the training into the break period before the semester starts, and we have students who will be going through the program and test and give us the feedback as quickly as possible.

Rebecca: Sounds like some interesting developments. For sure, we always wrap up by asking: “What’s next?”

Jacques: Well, that’s a good question. Actually, it’s kind of reflecting on what we have achieved ourselves. And going through this program has been actually eye opening for me to see the impact of one student consultant impacting forty enrolled students, that’s huge. That’s a big impact that we are getting there. And I’ve been thinking a lot on how I could replicate the same experience somewhere else in so many other environments internationally as well. I think this model is mostly in the US and UK, and somehow in some countries in Europe, but there’s so many other countries that need this kind of model to change and bring innovation into their teaching and learning. And I’ve been thinking a lot about creating an NGO that would be really providing this service to other universities around the world, in Africa or Asia or somewhere else, and to implement this model, because it’s not everyone who have all the resources that we are blessed to have here at Syracuse University. So extending and providing help to other universities or professional training services. it’s not really only limited to university, it can be K-12, it can be professional training, and help them to implement this model. I think that will increase the impact, and that’s what I’m really thinking hard on doing next.

Rebecca: Sounds like some big plans for sure.

SAFARI: Yes, I think it’s really big [LAUGHTER] I still have to figure out how to plan this and make it happen.

Laurel: My plans are smaller [LAUGHTER] in scale, although I hope to be a part of whatever it is that Jacques does in the future. For many years, over a decade, another person who has directed the Center for Teaching and Learning and I have felt called to offer small retreats for women leaders. And we’re talking about the everyday kind of women leaders who teach and coordinate and manage and mentor. And so we recently met again and said, “Are we ever going to do this?” And I think we are, and they are small in the sense of just a few people, maybe in a house with catered food and lots of space for napping. Because if you don’t have napping in a retreat, it’s not a retreat. You have to have good food, idyllic place, various senses used: taste and smell and sight and so forth, and napping availability. And so just to make that kind of space and to bring some of our leadership expertise to bear, but mostly to help women reflect on their identity as leaders, their expertise, their calling, and just to deepen their understanding of their own vocation. So that’s my dream. I don’t know. We’ll see if it comes.

Rebecca: I like the true dreams in this “what’s next” for sure.

John: Thank you both for joining us, and we appreciate the information you’ve shared.

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

SAFARI: Thank you.

Laurel: It’s been a delight.

[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]

369. The Present Professor

Faculty often have a teaching persona that they bring to the classroom. In this episode, Liz Norell joins us to discuss the benefits of sharing your authentic self with your students. Liz is a political scientist and the Associate Director of Instructional Support at the University of Mississippi Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. She is also the author of The Present Professor: Authenticity and Transformational Teaching.

Show Notes

  • Norell, Elizabeth A. (2024). The Present Professor: Authenticity and Transformational Learning. University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Schwartz, Harriet L. 2019. Connected Teaching: Relationship, Power, and Mattering in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
  • Denial, C. J. (2024). A pedagogy of kindness (Vol. 1). University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Remen, Rachel Naomi (1996). Noetic Sciences Review. Spring.
  • Tulshyan, Ruchika, and Jodi-Ann Burey (2021). “Stop Telling Women They Have Imposter Syndrome.” Harvard Business Review, February 11.
  • Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
  • POD Network
  • The Enneagram Institute

Transcript

Rebecca: Faculty often have a teaching persona that they bring to the classroom. In this episode, we discuss the benefits of sharing your authentic self with your students.

[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 Liz Norell. Liz is a political scientist and the Associate Director of Instructional Support at the University of Mississippi Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. She is also the author of The Present Professor: Authenticity and Transformational Teaching. Welcome back, Liz.

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

John: Good to talk to you again.

Rebecca: Yeah. Today’s teas are:… Liz, are you having some tea with us today?

Liz: I am having the excellent tea called Vitamin Water Energy. I believe, actually, I was drinking the same thing [LAUGHTER] the last time we spoke, and we decided that it qualified because it’s water with flavor, so like, it’s tea.

Rebecca: Yeah, clearly. [LAUGHTER] What do you have, John?

John: I am having Kyoto Cherry Rose Organic Green Tea, which actually was something that Rebecca purchased, and it’s delicious.

Rebecca: I’m sure it is John. [LAUGHTER] I’m sure it’s really cherry full. The cherry saga continues. [LAUGHTER]

John: In case you didn’t hear the earlier episode, Rebecca liked the scent of the cherry -lavored black and green teas, but did not actually enjoy the taste of them, so it’s become my tea.

Rebecca: And John loves cherry tea.

John: It was a mutually beneficial arrangement. [LAUGHTER]

Liz: Love it when that happens. Yeah, I listened to your most recent episode this morning, and I heard some talk about cherry tea.

Rebecca: The saga continues, for sure.

Liz: Yes.

Rebecca: …from the same tea shop, I have blue sapphire tea.

John: That’s an old standard now.

Rebecca: yeah, well, I discovered it at that same tea shop, and it’s really become one of my favorites, much better than [LAUGHTER] the cherry tea,

John: …which is arguable. But, in any case, we’ve invited you here today to discuss your new book, The Present Professor. The title of the first chapter is, “Why a book about presence?” and that seems like a good way to start this discussion. So. why a book about presence?

Liz: I am so excited to get to talk about this book, because it’s finally starting to trickle out. And this discussion about presence, I think, we see it in a lot of work that other incredible scholars have done. I’m thinking of Harriet Swartz in particular, talks about presence, but to me, the thing that has come to define the way I think about my own teaching practice is how available am I to notice what’s happening with my students in the room? And to do that requires me to kind of turn off the self-monitoring part of my brain or I just run out of cognitive capacity. And so presence to me is that thing that allows us to be with our students, to recognize when they’re struggling, to read their non-verbal communication, to bring some of our awareness to our own mirroring of their body language and those sorts of things. And so I just feel like this book is the next in a nice line of work. And I know you’ve had Cate Denial on talking about her book. I feel like our two books go together really well. Just to think about what can we do as instructors to try to deal with some of our own social needs, by getting comfortable with ourselves, by turning down some of our anxieties and maybe imposter-ish feelings, so that we can direct our attention to the students who are in a learning environment with us

Rebecca: That cues us up nicely for what we were thinking to ask you next, which is that faculty often have teaching personas that differ from the identity that they share in other aspects of their lives. Why might it be important to be a more authentic version of yourself in the classroom?

Liz: I think we all know when someone is putting on kind of a persona. We can sense in ways that we can’t often articulate when someone is being authentic and when they’re not. And if trust is important, as I believe it is, in creating transformational learning, then we have to reduce the opportunities that students have to feel like we’re kind of pretending to be something we’re not. And I like to talk about authenticity as kind of a spectrum, because obviously who I am when I’m in line at the post office getting frustrated is not who I’m going to bring into the classroom. But that doesn’t mean that by obscuring that part of me that I’m not being authentic. It’s really about thinking about the ways that we interact with people in ways that feel nourishing for us, and how can we bring those ways of being into the classroom to the extent that that feels safe? And I think one of the reasons that I like to think of this as a continuum is that not everybody feels safe bringing their more authentic self into the classroom for lots of reasons, depending on what your identity is and the different aspects of that. And so I never want somebody to feel like they have to bring their fully authentic self into the classroom, because that could actually work against your teaching goals. But thinking about ways that we can bring some of our individualism into the classroom in ways that feel trust building and relationship building is really powerful to help students feel like they’re safe to take some experiments with us, to try things, to be themselves as well. And that all just kind of creates this cascade effect where we build trust and community, and learning can really be quite magical then and fun, really fun.

John: When you bring your full self to the classroom, how does that help create an environment for more transformational learning experiences for our students?

Liz: I’m going to be a little pedantic here, John, and just say, like, maybe not your full authentic self, but like more authentic self. And let me just kind of answer that by way of anecdote. So about a week before we’re recording this, I had a friend who was in kind of crisis, and it was really bringing my mood down, and I’m generally pretty hyper in a classroom, because I get very excited about learning. And so just saying to students, like, “I’m having this thing in my personal life, one of my friends is really struggling, and last week we weren’t sure if she was okay, and that’s just kind of on my mind right now, and I wanted you all to know that,” and I could just kind of see the room… like shoulders dropped, and people were thinking about the ways that we lean on each other in moments when we’re not at our best. And so I think that those moments where we can show a little glimmer of something in our life, and I didn’t tell them the whole story, and my friend’s, I won’t do that here. It’s not appropriate. But just letting them know that something is going on in my life gives students permission to not be perfect all the time. And I really, truly believe that when we start to relate to one another as humans in a classroom, that that’s where we feel, as I said before, safe to take risks, safe to explore, be curious, and connect on a human level in a way that just is that magic of learning.

Rebecca: Wait, we don’t have to be perfect all the time?

Liz: I’m sorry, Rebecca, but no, you don’t. In fact, it’s actually better if you’re not.

Rebecca: That was important to hear.

Liz: Yeah.

Rebecca: Alright. [LAUGHTER] One of the things that you argue in your book is that as instructors, we should focus on service rather than helping or fixing. So maybe we can start by defining what you mean by that, and then also, how might this benefit our students and ourselves?

Liz: So this concept came to me by way of Rachel Naomi Remen, who wrote this wonderful piece called “In the Service of Life,” and I read it for the first time when I was… this is a weird tangent… I was at a prison yoga workshop, so a workshop on how to teach yoga to people who are currently justice involved. And it was a really wonderful piece, because we often think about working with vulnerable populations as “I’m here to help.” And what Remen argues in this piece is that when we help, we create a kind of power dynamic, that I am somehow here to make you better, and it’s a fully one-way relationship that the people who are allegedly being helped feel as a kind of condescension or a “I am not your equal.” Remen says, “if we are serving, then we’re both getting something out of it. I’m coming to you as a human. You’re coming to me as a human, and we are working together in the service of making each other better.” And so I like to think of teaching as a service as opposed to a helping, because I get just as much, probably more, out of my interactions with students than I think that they will for me, because I get to see the incredibly diverse lives that our students are living, and see all the different ways that they face and overcome challenges, obstacles, and it’s just so inspiring every single day. And so I really think that thinking about it in this way can be helpful, and it’s not something that I’ve ever seen talked about in education. It’s a subtle language shift, but I think it’s more about the mindset that’s behind it.

Rebecca: The other place that I’ve seen that language, Liz, is in service learning, and when they use the hyphen in the service hyphen learning, and that it’s not used as a charitable work, but rather where the service is used in exchange, where the service partner is a co-educator, and that it goes both ways. So that’s the other space that I’ve seen it in a really similar way that you’re talking about it.

Liz: Yeah.

Rebecca: …and the hyphen is used to kind of indicate this relationship, as opposed to this like charitable model.

Liz: Well, and I’ll just say, in the high-impact practices literature, service learning is a high-impact practice, but the key to service learning being a learning endeavor is the reflection that we do after we engage in the service, and it’s kind of making meaning of what we’ve done. And so I think that that’s similar to the way that I would prefer to teach, which is to engage in some sort of activity and then reflect on it, to build metacognition.

John: Feelings of imposterism, sometimes called imposter syndrome or imposter phenomenon can create barriers to success and belonging for faculty and students alike, but especially those with minoritized identities. How do you think about imposter-like feelings? And how might we reduce feelings of imposterism for both students and faculty?

Liz: One of the key messages of my book, and this emerged as I was writing, I didn’t know this was going to be a theme, is that what’s happening with our students is happening with us and vice versa, and what’s good for us is good for our students and vice versa. So I do see a lot of faculty, especially earlier career, and especially women or non-white faculty, talking about feeling like an imposter. And in my current role, where I’m working with faculty every single day, I hear this all the time, but our students also feel it. And there’s this wonderful piece that I talk about in the book from the Harvard Business Review called “Stop Telling Women they have Imposter Syndrome.” I think that what we have done with this sort of buzz word, instead of thinking of it as, like this narrow, sort of, I don’t want to use the word clinical, because that feels pathological, but like, as opposed to the psychological phenomenon, we’ve sort of taken what is natural and human and turned it into a problem that an individual needs to solve. And so by thinking about imposterism, imposter syndrome, imposter phenomenon, we tell students and faculty, especially those with minoritized identities, that you need to work on yourself. And I just fundamentally don’t think that’s true. I think we’re all good, but the cultures that we have experienced or created or whatever in higher education, don’t really think about it in that way, and I know we’re going to talk about that more in a minute. So I think that when we’re talking about these imposter-like feelings, it’s that we’re seeing a mismatch between our way of being and what we perceive to be the normal way of being in higher education. So, presence work, working to get comfortable with yourself and being more authentic around our colleagues and students, gives permission to our colleagues and students to be themselves and not feel like there is this mismatch, and so that allows people to just kind of show up as their messy, beautiful selves in service of learning in a way that really does allow for greater feelings of belonging. So that’s how I think about it. And I really hope that the message comes loud and clear through this book, that anyone who’s listening, you are not a problem, and you don’t need to be solved. What we want is for you to know yourself, and that’s what this book is trying to do.

John: And as you’re talking about this, and when I was reading this section, I was thinking, when people are talking about imposter syndrome, that by itself, can generate stereotype threat.

Liz: Exactly.

John: …which is, in a sense, saying you don’t belong here, which is exactly the opposite of the message we want to send to people who may already feel that way.

Rebecca: We talked a lot about kind of modeling authenticity by finding your own presence and being present. Is there a role in discussing that with students or to having a conversation? Or is it about modeling it?

Liz: I think that’s going to depend on what feels authentic to each person. It’s really nice when you start talking about being more authentic, because then every answer can be, “Well, what feels authentic to you?” Right? But there’s a joke in that, and there’s a nugget of truth, which is that anything we do in an instructional context or a work context in general, if it doesn’t feel authentic, then you’re going to lose the trust of the people you’re trying to work with. So I am not a person who has a lot of filters. I tend to just overshare with anyone who will listen. When you read the book, you will get that clearly. [LAUGHTER] One of the early readers said, “Are you sure you want to tell all these stories, Liz?” Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. So I talk to my students about why I don’t try to censor what’s coming out of my mouth. I mean, I do, but I want to be authentic with them, and I tell them why, and I tell them why I think that’s important. But I think other people who maybe have a bit more guardrails up, which I think, honestly, is healthy, just modeling it can be really helpful. I mean, honestly, like, if we could all just be maybe, like, 10 or 15% more real with our students, it would make a seismic difference in their experience of higher education. So not everybody has to be like me and just like, tell everyone everything all the time, right? Just a little bit. Just like let a little bit of your humanity shine through. It would dramatically change the student experience on our campuses.

John: In chapter two, you also talk about a number of strategies that instructors can use to help form human connections with students. Could you describe one or two of these ways that you found to be helpful to build those types of connections with students as part of that sharing of your authentic self?

Liz: I draw heavily here on Zaretta Hammond’s work in her book about Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, and she shares trust generators. So I’m just going to share a couple of ways that I have done this with students. One is trying to make yourself human, and one of the things that I’m always very sensitive to, especially this semester… I’m teaching a math class, it’s actually listed as math. It’s a statistics class, even though I’m a political scientist. But I love statistics, and students who come into this class have high levels of anxiety, and they’re afraid that they’re going to fail. And so I tell them stories about times when I tried to do something and didn’t, academically. And those have always felt like very tender to me, because I like being a good student, I want to be someone who succeeds at everything. But seeing someone in an instructional role who can say like, “I did this thing and it didn’t work out, and I had to kind of swerve in a different direction.” I feel like that that builds some trust and creates some community in the classroom. Another one she talks about is just kind of creating more regular connections with students, and that can mean hanging out where they are. So I’m constantly asking students like, “Can we have office hours at the Starbucks on campus, because I really like a coffee, and I know you’d rather be there” or “It’s beautiful right now, can we meet outside this afternoon and work on some practice problems?” So, just kind of becoming more familiar to them by being in the spaces that they are. And I know lots of people who’ve been on this podcast have talked about office hours as being student hours, not in your office. This is just another way of thinking about the same thing.

Rebecca: In chapter three, you focus on minefields and shelters [LAUGHTER] of academic culture. Maybe first, you can identify what those are…

Liz: Yes.

Rebecca: …but then also maybe provide some examples of minefields and how they might be avoided, and also maybe some examples of shelters.

Liz: Two things I want to say before I get into this metaphor. The first one is that I wrote this book mostly during COVID, [LAUGHTER] and secondly, while I was experiencing some really challenging working conditions at a previous job, and I’ve also had several tours through graduate school. And I noticed as I was writing that I have a lot of kind of military metaphors around academia in this book. So like “tours of duty” through graduate school, and so this metaphor of minefields and shelters just kind of emerged from the writing process. And I like to think of it as: “Where are the places in academic culture, and this will vary by person and institution and discipline, but where are the places where you have to kind of walk a little tenderly because you’re not quite sure when you might accidentally step on or say something that’s just going to kind of create this kerfluffle? Right?” So the minefields for me were graduate school where a certain way of showing up was highly, highly incentivized, and that did not look like having a real life, having kids, having a partner, needing to pay your bills, like having the need for sleep. That was not like a valuable currency in that world. And so that’s how I think about minefields, just like these places where you got to be a little careful about your moves. The shelters are the places where you can lay down the armor, take down your guard, and just kind of be yourself. And my favorite shelter to write about was libraries. I think many of us sometimes kind of forget that the library exists. But these are these wonderful places where the people who work there are just like giddy with excitement about creating opportunities for people to be themselves and learn what they want to learn, and they’re also deeply invested in unfettered curiosity information seeking. A core value of librarians of the American Library Association is free access to information, and so I love libraries. Centers for teaching, which is where I work now, is another place that’s often a shelter on campus. The POD Network, many of your listeners will know the POD Network, the professional organization for people who work in centers for teaching. One of our core values, our core ethics, is confidentiality. So when faculty come to us, we don’t share what they’ve talked to us about, who they are. We don’t report out to their bosses that they’ve even shown up. And so the Center for Teaching is often a really nice shelter where you don’t have to worry so much about self monitoring, and these are the places where we can start to do some of this unpacking of our own baggage we may have acquired along the path to our current role in higher ed, and start to think about how we want to actually bring more authentic ways of being and our values into the work we’re doing.

John: That section really connected to me, especially the discussion of graduate school. I was part of a group of 25 graduate students to enter the class, and I was one of two people to finish, and the other person ended up finishing about a decade later. I don’t know quite how he got that extension, but it was a pretty rough experience, especially in the first year. The intent seemed to be weeding people out as extensively and to as great an extent possible. And that’s not a very positive environment to be in.

Liz: If I may. John, I think my single favorite sentence in the book is in that chapter about graduate school, where I talk about how the currency of graduate school, it’s like a firing squad, where your job is to score the kill shot in somebody’s… again, we’ve got the military metaphors… in somebody’s talk. So when you go to a job talk, when somebody comes to do a presentation, when you go to a conference, when you are in a seminar, you’re trying to, like, find that thing that they failed to account for or did wrong, and just like, annihilate the paper. We are trained to be assassins of ideas, and that is not productive to forming authentic relationships, or even just like being a kind person. And so I think we have to look at those things that we learned in graduate school and make a decision about whether we want to continue to hold those relevant and true, or if we want to unlearn them and chart a different way of being.

John: And similarly, your discussion of the faculty workshops, where there were paper presentations, everyone there seemed to be intent on trying to cut down the arguments of the presenters. And when I went on the job market, I very much was looking for a school that did not have that environment. And I wish we could get away from that, more generally.

Liz: When I wrote this book, I was really hoping that people would come to it with an open heart and an open mind, and I have, facetiously, but also kind of honestly, been calling this book sort of like “self help for college professors.” It’s not, it’s not. There’s a lot of research in here. But I also think that in the academy, we’ve done a historically poor job, as you were just mentioning, John, of helping people understand how they can bring their own values into the important scholarly work that we do. And so I really hope that people come to this book and find something, anything, that will help them learn a little bit more about themselves in ways that can inform their teaching in kind of humanistic ways. And there are lots of different entry points to that. And I hope that people will see this book as like a buffet where you can just kind of sample. And if you want to talk about the Enneagram, we could do that. And if you want to talk about yoga, we can do that. And if you want to talk about implicit bias, we can do that. But no matter where you start or where you end, hopefully we’re reflecting on our own experiences and what we hope our students can learn alongside us in their educational path.

Rebecca: And I love the idea of the “alongside us.” And that goes back to your idea of service that you were talking about earlier.

Liz: Yeah.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

Liz: There are a lot of things that are next, and I don’t know which one will actually be next next, but I can tell you that I’ve been doing a lot of work, as you all know, because I was here last time talking about it, about neuro divergence, and how can we help support students and colleagues and ourselves in more effective communication practices across neuro differences? I also, for reasons that I don’t need to talk about right now, I have recently gotten very interested in questions around coordinated courses and equity. And this is a “me-search,” as Sarah Rose Cavanagh says… it’s not really research, but I’m sort of noodling on that a little bit. I have a couple of chapters that I’ve submitted to an edited volume about coaching in faculty development. So lots of different things, but I’m just always looking for opportunities to have thoughtful conversations about how to be a more humane academic. And even though I just named three very different things, I welcome ideaIs from just about anyone. So I’m the kind of person who… my colleagues sometimes make fun of me… I’ll send an email to anyone and say, “Hey, we should work on something together,” because, as I always say, like people are already ignoring me, so if they ignore an email, then no loss, right? [LAUGHTER] And the status quo prevails. But maybe they might say yes, and so I welcome others to do that in the same way. If there are things that I can be of service on, I welcome that.

Rebecca: Well, thanks for making us all think about being a little more humane.

John: And your book has so many wonderful examples. You’ve got a really rich collection of professional development suggestions, some examples from a wide variety of disciplines of present professors, and many suggestions on how you can become more present. I really enjoyed reading it.

Liz: Thank you. Can we also just talk about how beautiful this cover is?

John: [LAUGHTER] It is a beautiful cover with a nice lighthouse.

Liz: Gosh, when they sent me the proof of it, I started crying, like immediately.

Rebecca: [LAUGHTER] Well, we look forward to sharing this episode and the book.

Liz: Thank you both for the work you do. I always enjoy listening to your episodes, and I appreciate the opportunity to be a return guest.

John: and you will be on again very soon with a podcast that’ll be recorded at the Online Learning Consortium.

Liz: Yes, well, I look forward to seeing you all soon.

John: We’re looking forward to that too.

Rebecca: Definitely.

[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]

368. Pedagogy for Large Classes

Building a sense of community is an important component of inclusive teaching. In this episode, Anna Logan and Ann Marie Farrell join us to discuss strategies that can be used to cultivate belonging and increase student engagement in large classes. Anna is an Associate Professor in the School of Inclusive and Special Education and the former Dean for Teaching and Learning at the Institute of Education, Dublin City University. Ann Marie is an Assistant Professor, also in the School of Inclusive and Special Education at Dublin City University. Anna and Ann Marie are both recipients of multiple teaching awards. Since 2018, they have been running an annual Pedagogy for Higher Education Large-classes Symposium.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Building a sense of community is an important component of inclusive teaching. In this episode, we discuss strategies that can be used to cultivate belonging and increase student engagement in large classes.

[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 Anna Logan and Ann Marie Farrell. Anna is an Associate Professor in the School of Inclusive and Special Education and the former Dean for Teaching and Learning at the Institute of Education, Dublin City University. Ann Marie is an Assistant Professor, also in the School of Inclusive and Special Education at Dublin City University. Anna and Ann Marie are both recipients of multiple teaching awards. Since 2018, they have been running an annual Pedagogy for Higher Education Large-Classes Symposium. Welcome Anna and Anne Marie.

Anna: Thank you.

Ann Marie: Thank you.

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

Anna: I am. Generally I drink Irish Breakfast tea. But on Earth, this occasion, I got something special. I’ve never had it before. It’s called Emperors Clouds and Mist, so it’s a green tea, I don’t know. Hopefully it’ll work out alright. And I’m having it in a keep cup, a glass keep cup.

Ann Marie: Well, I did not go down the fancy route, so I am drinking Barry’s tea with, I don’t know what type of actual tea it is, except that it’s Barry’s tea, and it is a staple of pretty much every cupboard in every kitchen in Ireland. So it’s standard ordinary tea.

John: And we have some of that in our office, actually. We have a nice variety there.

Rebecca: On this occasion, I got some Irish Breakfast tea. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I should have, [LAUGHTER] but I am drinking a ginger peach green tea.

Rebecca: A good favorite of John’s, of course. So we invited you here today to discuss your work related to large-class instruction. Could you each tell us a little bit about your background and interest in large-class instruction?

Ann Marie: Well, I suppose we’re both teacher educators. All of our students are either student teachers or are qualified teachers who come back to do some of our postgraduate courses. But particularly in relation to student teachers, some of our classes are quite large, and we were anxious, I suppose, to model good teaching practices in that context, especially as our students will themselves be teachers. So a number of years ago, we began to look at our work in the large-class context, particularly on a four-year Bachelor of Education primary teaching program, which, in each year group, has over 400 students, and we were teaching all 400 together in a large tiered lecture theater. So that was, I suppose, my interest in that area.

Anna: And I suppose, just to add to that, for many years I’ve taught a small number of classes that are in a large cohort, that kind of 400-plus size, and always enjoyed it, always got a buzz from the experience. And then, I think a couple of years ago, I was one day teaching that large cohort at nine o’clock in the morning in that tiered lecture theater, a quick 50-minute lecture. And later that day, I was teaching a group of six doctorate in education students, and I remember being really struck by the kind of very differential model of resourcing there: these six, eight doctoral students, really experienced practitioners, getting a lot of support and so on, versus perhaps that introductory class. But then a number of years ago, Ann Marie, who we go back a long, long way, invited me also to co-teach some of her sessions with the large cohort. And I really enjoyed that work so much, so I’d already enjoyed the dynamic of working with the large group. I had questions about it, about the equity issues associated with it. We might come back to those a little bit later. And also, I just really enjoyed working with Anne Marie and the dynamic of working hard with that large group.

Ann Marie: The pupil-teacher ratio was still one to 225.

Anna: We go back a long, long way.

Ann Marie: We were in college together with our primary degree, and then 10 years later, just totally by chance, we ended up back in college together on a postgraduate diploma course. So we go back to the 1980s as students, and then later as colleagues. [LAUGHTER]

Anna: And we’re still talking to one another, which is good. Always helps. [LAUGHTER]

John: That’s wonderful. Can you tell us about your Pedagogy for Higher Education Large Classes project?

Ann Marie: Yeah, I suppose I can tell you a little bit about that. The Pedagogy for Higher Education Large-Class symposium (or PHELC) symposium, began really as a one-off event. We were invited to run a pre-conference workshop at a wonderful conference held annually in Valencia every year called the Higher Education Advances Conference, or the HEAD Conference. So in 2019 we ran that pre-conference workshop face to face, and again, a pre-conference workshop for the same conference in 2020 online when the pandemic hit. And in the course of that, we set up a website. I suppose, we set up a model for the symposium that then became an event in its own right. So we’ve run it now for six years, and we’ve attracted people both online… the last five have been entirely online… and we’ve attracted people from all over the world who are engaging with very large-class numbers and large-class cohorts, albeit in different contexts. But many of the challenges, and more importantly, many of the possibilities that have been experienced by those higher education teachers, is our focus at that symposium. So we look for papers based on research, but also based on reflective practice, with the aim of reducing the fear and angst around large-class teaching and giving people who are doing some really good work in that area, a platform to share that work with others. So we also set up a website, and most of the presentations and all of the papers, we asked presenters to write an accompanying paper along with their presentation. They are all available on phelc.ie, PHELC.ie, for anyone to look at. The Symposium is free, we usually get funding here in Ireland, and I suppose our main aim is just to enable access to anyone who wishes to participate, either to listen or to present, that there’s no barriers. So hence the online, and hence no conference fee for it.

Rebecca: But Anne Marie, you said it started as a one off, I think it’s still going.

Ann Marie: Oh, it’s still going. We’ve done six [LAUGHTER] and our initial intention was just to do the pre-conference workshop in Valencia in 2019 but it became evident that there was an interest in that area. The Conference Committee invited us back again the following year to do a second workshop on this topic, but we just got a lot of very good feedback from participants. We also had put in a huge amount of work into developing the website, developing the workshop or the symposium, and we love large-class teaching. We had done a lot of work in that area ourselves, and it just allowed for our pedagogical practice and that to be mapped onto the scholarship of teaching and learning, and to give people an opportunity to engage in scholarly discussions, be it at the symposium or in terms of the papers that they submit, that they could align their teaching practice along with their academic writing, researcher-type practice. So we’re still going. Now we are at a crossroads, Anna and I were just wondering if we will continue with our annual symposium, or maybe we might move to a symposium, perhaps that maybe every second year, and broaden out maybe to do some more focused publication and research, perhaps every other year, we’re not sure. So we’re due to carve out a day or two to work out what we’re going to do going forward, but we will be doing something going forward.

Anna: And we were always committed, John, to open education resources, so all the publications are available as OERs and so on. So again, I think reflecting Anne Marie’s observation, we tried face to face, we tried HyFlex, we tried online, and what we’re really interested in kind of equity and making sure there’s no barriers. So we have had people from all across the world, and we’re committed to the resources we produce being available to everybody.

John: Excellent, and we’ll include a link to the website in the show notes, so if people would like to check out those papers they can do so. One of the things we’ve noticed, in the U.S., at least, is that as we brought in more first-gen students and more low-income students, we see increased DFW rates and one concern that a lot of people have with large classes is that it might be easier for students to get lost. What’s your perspective on addressing that issue of students feeling disconnected from their class and their instructor, when they’re in such a large-class environment, and I teach a very large-class as well.

Anna: Yeah, that’s a really interesting question, John. And just thinking a little bit about it, and it’s interesting, it was actually some colleagues that I met on my sabbatical where I first heard that term “weed out,” because it’s not a term that would be much used, in the Irish context anyway. On the one hand, you know, looking at the data, I suspect that that notion of attrition or non-progression or drop out is potentially maybe slightly lower in the Irish context. The latest figures coming from our higher education authority are putting us at about 85% progression from first year, which is, I think, pretty good. That said, it’s interesting that the rates of progression are considerably lower among male students, but also among students who come from socio-economically disadvantaged groups. And coming back to your question and the question of relationships. I suspect that that failing to build relationships, or build connections with classmates or with lecturers or to feel that they belong in the community, whether it’s large or small, is very likely to be a significant factor in that dropout. Again, I think interestingly, it reminds us when we look at that, and it certainly was something I know we discussed at our most recent PHELC Symposium the importance of the relationships when teaching at scale, and that not making any assumptions. Sometimes, maybe as lecturers, we assume that students are well connected, that they have a good network. That’s very often not the case. So while, as I say, the data might not be quite as strong and we don’t have maybe that concept of a “weed out class,” I think it still doesn’t preclude the fact that a concern to foster a community that is relationship rich is important, regardless of the context.

John: I noticed in last summer’s PHELC symposium, there was a paper that you presented Ann Marie with Peter Felton on relationship-rich education in large-classes. Could you talk just a little bit about that?

Ann Marie: I suppose myself and Peter, in his context, would look at very large classes from the perspective of building a relationship, that it is possible to build a relationship, whereas sometimes, I think it can feel, sometimes, to some higher education teachers, that it’s almost impossible to have a relationship but you don’t know anyone’s names, or you might know very few names. But you can build a relationship with a really big class in different ways, even though you don’t know their name: very simple things like smile when people are walking in the room, say hi as they’re passing you heading up to the seat, have a wander around the room, don’t stay stuck down at the bottom, move. So like when I’m in a class, I share my proximity. I wear a headset. I move away from the podium. I’m up the back while I’m speaking, looking over the shoulders to make sure they’re not booking flights or watching YouTube while I’m chatting. And we use different teaching approaches and strategies in that large-class context to mix up how we relate with the students like Anna and I co-teaching. So when we co-teach, we tend to use a workshop format for at least some part of that session, which then allows myself and Anna to walk up the steps of the room. We chat to small groups. So we literally, physically bring ourselves closer to the students. You can have a bit of fun in class. If you do get to know some of the students, you can invite those students to help you change the dynamic, the colder dynamic, to make it warmer, then we can talk about that in a minute, in terms of chatting with Class Reps and that sort of thing. So I suppose in the first instance, it being the potential of having a relationship, like, if you take it completely out of teaching, really huge groups like Coldplay, Robbie Williams have a massive relationship with 10s of 1000s of people standing in front of them, and they don’t know any of them, but there is a feeling, there’s an empathy generated in that really large context. And I’m not saying that we have to be Robbie Williams or Chris Martin at all. That’s not what I’m saying, but it’s just really in the teacher’s perception of what is possible there. And I know with my work with large-classes, they are my favorite. My final-year students, I’d say I know names of 10 of them. There are 430 in the room. I love that class because there is such a two-way flow in communication in the room and between sessions on back channels. It could be something like we have, in the Moodle we use here, an in-built chat function, then a module page on Moodle, but something like Padlet where students can ask questions anonymously without having to put their hands up in a really big group, allows to build up that relationship as well. And it doesn’t just mean you answer the questions in class if they ask them in class, but it also allows them a way to reach you between classes, so if something might occur to them afterwards. So I would check that kind of a back channel between the sessions, and whether I answer the questions in class or not, I answer them in writing, one way or another, on that back channel. And you don’t even need technology in class. If people are a bit reluctant to speak, you can use a scrap of paper or post it, or something like that. It’s just to get the student voice and to capture that whatever way you can, so that you’re capturing their voice and their feeling that you’re listening and that they are engaging at that level in the class. So all of those sorts of strategies build up a teacher-student relationship. The way you would in small class of 20 may be a bit more naturally, but you just need to think about it in a different way. That’s about perception, around how you perceive or what you perceive as a possibility in that very large context. And it means that, in my own case, when I look at like I’m currently, this semester, working with 430 final-year Bachelor of Education student teachers, and they’re my favorite class. I love them, and I feel I have a relationship with them, and I feel I have a good relationship with them, even though, out of the 430 I probably could name 10 people outside, but I feel I have a relationship with them in spite of that. But just I think it is how we as teachers perceive numbers and what’s big. What does a large-class mean, actually? So for me, I think 400 is large, and then I visited somebody working in Sweden, who has over 600 in his classes. So mine suddenly seems very little compared to his.

Rebecca: I think your connection of using performance or concerts or theater as an example of where you can feel connection to performers is a good example of how students can feel connected to their faculty in these large settings.

Anna: Ann Marie has mentioned, and she’s right, that it’s about our perceptions of size and what’s possible and the possibilities. There’s also a little bit of it that is about students’ expectations and students’ perceptions, and sometimes a lot of our large-class teaching is in your traditional tier lecture theater with a podium at the front. And it’s no accident that Ann Marie has a great relationship with her final-year students, because she works with them in that large group in first year. But it’s also, I think, about over time, building their expectation that they are valued, that, as Ann Marie said, simple things like smiling, that there’s an expectation that we want to have a relationship with them, that we value that, that it isn’t that disembodied voice that’s standing at the podium and lecturing at them, that it is about relationships and it is about community and assessment is another way in which we can set that up, too.

Rebecca: We’ve talked a little bit about the differences in how you might build relationships in large versus small settings. And Anna, you also talked about the difference in your experience of going from a big class to a small, intimate doctoral setting. [LAUGHTER] Can you talk a little bit more about, from the perspective of faculty, the difference in instruction between teaching these large classes and teaching small classes?

Anna: Yeah, again, I think it is, apart from thinking about the equity challenges and the message that that conveys, sometimes, some of the literature talks about information transmission approaches in a large class, versus dialogic teaching and exploration and so on. And it sometimes strikes me, and having worked closely with Ann Marie over the years as well, that actually the difference in the large class, as Ann Marie said several times, it’s about kind of not just ruling anything out, but thinking, well, if I do want to create a relationship, or I do want to elicit learners voice in that context, how am I going to do it? Rather than just saying, “Well, it’s just not possible, and it has to be that information transmission piece.” For me, it strikes me that in order to do it well, the instructor, the educator, has to be much more deliberate, much more careful in their planning, not just thinking about their learning content, but thinking about the things we’ve spoken about, like the relationships, like, how am I going to elicit students voice? How am I going to build in formative feedback? Because it’s not, perhaps, as natural as in that context, where I was working with six or eight doctoral students who were coming to the session with me, having set prior reading and that they were anticipating and fully expecting. Their expectation was that was going to be dialog, lots of exchange of views, and that’s why I think two little things can make a difference that break down that barrier in the large-class, in terms of setting our expectations of what’s possible, for not just for ourselves as higher education teachers, but also for our students as well.

John: In large-classes, students are often somewhat reluctant to volunteer responses or to ask questions. You’ve already addressed that a little bit in terms of having a backchannel. Are there any other strategies that you use to help students become more comfortable participating in larger classes?

Ann Marie: Yes, so I usually, when I have a large-class, email the Class Rep prior to the module beginning, and I try to meet them, either online or face to face for 10 or 15 minutes, at least for the first couple of weeks. And when I meet them, I request that they will help me to teach in the first couple of weeks by asking and answering questions in class. In most cases, they kind of step back a bit in horror and because they don’t like speaking in the large-class context at all. And these are Class Reps who have put themselves out there anyway, but they’re still not comfortable in that context. So what I usually do is I go through the forthcoming session, I tell them the questions I’m going to ask, and I give them potential answers to those questions. And then for other parts of the session, I give them questions to ask me, and then I get one student to monitor the back channel so that I’m not reading out the questions that have been posted. It’s a student reading it out, one of the reps as well. And I have a little mic called a CatchBox that’s in a foam dice type item. And it’s a microphone that can be thrown around the room like a foam football, and it allows the students to speak in their normal voices without need to raise them. So the reps that I have set up then models answering and asking questions. They model the use of the CatchBox. And even in the first session, you find that some people that I have not planted who are on the edge of courage tip over and have the courage to ask the questions they’re dying to ask. And by the time they get to the third session, I don’t need to set up anyone anymore. There will always be a few people who will ask questions, and the fact that the student is monitoring the Padlet or the backchannel of the typed and posted questions by default, means you get student voice as well. So I have found that a really useful way of gathering the student voice, and also, if you do set a task in the class, or if Anna and I are co-teaching in the workshop, because they’ve spoken, we do something like a think-pair-share where they’ve chatted one or two others, they have a bit more courage to respond as well, because they’ve already sussed out the response. They’ve already sussed out the question. They’ve teased out a couple of things between themselves, plus we’re walking around the room answering questions. So sometimes when that happens, I might be chatting to a group, two or three, during the task, and we have a little chat, and then I say, “Right, I’m going to come back to you now with the CatchBox, and I want you to say the whole class exactly what you’ve just said to me,” and again, you get a little worried look, but one of them will do it. So again, I think Anna, what you said there is right, the very deliberate actions in that big setting really help to gather the student voice.

Rebecca: You’ve talked a bit about student reps. Can you talk a little bit more about what they are and how you’ve designated them,

Ann Marie: They either volunteer or sometimes there might be a vote amongst the student body. So every year group, on every program, has student representatives, and the number of representatives vary depending on the size of the year group. So in a year group with 400 students, there are a minimum of six class representatives, and they’re volunteers. They’re linked with the students union, and their role is, I suppose, as a liaison or a communication between the union, between the Program Chair, and the staff of the program, and the students. So they’re a conduit for information between staff and students and between the university and students.

John: You mentioned using a CatchBox, and I’ve always wanted to use one. I saw them at a conference in SUNY Oneonta a while back. Do you toss it to specific students, or do you just toss it in the crowd to get responses?

Ann Marie: So the first time we bought it, I was delighted. I walked into the large class, and I asked a question, and I threw it in to the middle of the crowd, and they threw it back at me, [LAUGHTER] a few times, [LAUGHTER] so I never did that again. [LAUGHTER] So that is why I model it, that is why I set up the first couple of sessions. So the students I choose, or the rest, or whoever’s helping me, they scatter through the room, and then I make it very clear that when I ask a question, they have to put their hand up high so I can see them. And then I will throw the Catchbox to them. They throw it back to me. If I’m on my own, if I’m the only teacher in the room, with two aisles, I’ll stand on one aisle, and I might ask a random student to stand on the other aisle, and I’ll throw it across to that student if I’m trying to reach somebody on the far side. So in my experience, I would caution against just randomly throwing it into the group, because people are very happy to use you as target practice. It doesn’t hurt if it hits you on the head, by the way. [LAUGHTER]

Anna: In those large-classes, we tend to use a headset mic because we want to do all that moving around the room in terms of building relationships. And when we first started that, before we had the Catchbox, we used to have hand-held microphones, the ones that move around. But I think we’re all the same. We tried to put that up to a student who we know has something wonderful to add from the work, but they all recoiled in horror, but I do think they enjoy the Catchbox. But again, as Ann Marie said, it’s about being deliberate and setting it up. That’s why it works.

Rebecca: So you both talked a lot about co-teaching and working with each other. Can you talk a little bit more about the benefits of this practice?

Anna: Co-teaching is interesting because you mentioned at the beginning, we’re both in the School of Inclusive and Special Education. And I know the language about university structures is different, but basically we’re in a department of 18 academics, and we’re all focused on inclusive and special education. And I know it’s the same in the United States and in many countries in the world, but one of the models of support for children in elementary and high schools, for example, that is very often used as a way to support more inclusive approaches, rather than withdrawing children from their mainstream classroom, is co-teaching. So the concept of co-teaching, as in, let’s define it, let’s use a standard definition of two or more adults in a single physical space delivering instruction. So that’s the definition of it that is used in the compulsory education sector, in elementary schools and high schools. We’ve looked a bit at the literature. The definition of what constitutes co-teaching is not at all as clear, it seems to us, in higher education, because co-teaching can be used just to describe a number of faculty members, sequentially teaching separately, within a module or within a course, for example. But, I suppose, coming back, co-teaching is an important concept. It’s kind of a threshold concept as part of looking at inclusion for a lot of our work with undergraduate students in those large courses and also larger courses. So a few years ago, I would have been responsible for teaching content in relation to working with special needs assistance, but also delivering some input on co-teaching. So it’s a concept that we want our students to grapple with, but we also enjoyed teaching the large class. So in the interest of modeling, walking the walk, talking the talk, Ann Marie invited me into the classroom to model that co-teaching. That was a really interesting experience for us. We did a little bit of research about it. We got students’ perspectives, but we also brought in some observers to observe us co-teaching. We know the literature about co-teaching, that for it to work well, it has to be very carefully planned. And we did plan. Initially, Ann Marie, I think we spent a lot of time really thinking, mapping out that 50-minute session. Typically, we’re talking about a 50-minute session, later we did longer sessions, but we really mapped it out, and what exactly I would be doing at a particular point in the lecture, what Ann Marie would be doing, what students would be doing. And we also thought about the kind of different models of co-teaching, because literature talks about lots of different models of co-teaching. So we thought about those, and what were we actually teaching? The really interesting thing was that the observers told us we needed to be more explicit, because, again, it’s no more than that kind of notion of maybe students come into the university and come into that tiered lecture theater, and they think about it like a theater, for example, and they think, “Well, I’m here to be passive and and I’m then going to get these wonderful thoughts from the professor on the podium at the front of the stage. So they also seem to be, in some instances, a little bit thrown by the fact that… Ann Marie, you might talk a bit more about that… about the two of us being in the room. It kind of threw them out of their comfort zone in terms of what was the expected model. So our observers noted that and reminded us that we needed to be explicit. This is why we’re modeling this. We’re modeling this because we think it’s really important for you to understand this concept and how it works, because you’re going to be a teacher. That’s taken me well away from the original question, which was about why we were using it. We were using it because we wanted to replicate workshop type activities that we would typically engage in with a much smaller group. And one of the supports for doing that was to have more than one teacher in the room.

Ann Marie: Anna said one of our reasons for using it was to model the process of co-teaching, because our students are going to be teachers. But other people have used co-teaching to model, let’s say, social workers. I can’t remember the author, but there is a paper on social work education and social workers using that co-teaching model to model different perspectives around a case conference or something like that. So it also enables, if you’re a higher education teacher, engaging in something that’s a contested concept or a contested idea. You can use the co-teaching model to show that contestation, because the two people are very likely to be coming into the room with perhaps different views and different insights. And you can model that carefully in that context. The most important thing, I think, around the co-teaching, is that you’re fairly comfortable with the person you’re co-teaching with, and that it is carefully planned. It’s a fair bit of work when you first do it, but once the planning is done for a session, like Anna and I started this about 14, 15, years ago, and where we have continued to co-teach for subsequent years, the work’s done. We know what we’re doing, but it was a heavy investment of time the first year we did it, but after that, it’s worth it, absolutely worth it, because it enabled us to do workshops with very large groups that I would have struggled to do on my own.

John: And it can provide a really rich experience for students. When I was a college student, two of my most memorable classes were team taught by two instructors. One was on bioethics, where there was a biologist and a philosopher, and the other one was on the philosophy of social sciences, where there was a philosopher and a sociologist teaching together with very, very different perspectives on all of it. And the ability to go back and forth and present different perspectives is really healthy. You had mentioned, though, doing some work with think-pair-share and some group activities. Could you talk more about what other type of small group activities you do in your large-classes?

Ann Marie: So usually what we do in those classes, it depends on the workshop, or it depends on the focus. So for example, on Monday, a couple of days ago, myself and another one of my colleagues, co-taught a workshop with the ED 4 group, and the focus of the workshop was on their assignments. I use universal design for learning in my own pedagogical practice with these students to model how to use it in teaching and learning, and part of the Universal Design is in the assignments. So I give them an awful lot of choice in terms of topics. I use authentic assessment. I’ve asked them to write for an audience that is not me. They choose their audience and so on. But they’re also allowed to work with who they want and how many they want, between two and five. Some people are very comfortable working in small groups, others are very happy to work with four others or whatever, but I give them all those choices. And then last month, the workshop we ran was for one and a half hours on planning for that assignment. So my objective was they walked out of there at the end of that session, before our reading week next week, with a plan of action to tackle that assignment. So the way that was structured was, I suppose, almost like a dance between myself and themselves. So I brought them through each criterion, they were supported by a writing frame that I gave per group, and I asked them to complete each step of the plan for their assignment based on the criteria and the expectation of the structure of that so that’s an example of a type of in-class task where they work together, in that case, choosing who to work with. And we stepped it so that we have six steps, but they completed one step, myself and the other teacher, Christina, wandered the room, and we came back after each step and summarized what we were seeing and filled in the gaps and then moved to the next step. That was a full tiered or stepped task. In other workshops or in other contexts, we might ask students to just talk about a key concept, they might not necessarily write anything. Give them five six minutes to talk about it. We’ll wander the room and then come back together and ask one or two to share with that. Sometimes, we might use the backchannel on our Moodle page for them to post what they’ve taught or things like, what does the word exclusion mean to you in a school context? So it just depends. We don’t structure the group because we can’t. They’re too big. The other thing I would say, though, is, in terms of very large-classes, it often, sometimes with me and often exclusively in other modules, they’re split into small groups, so they’re in workshop groups of 13, 14, or 15 workshop groups. In some modules, they’re never together as a big group, and there’s a bit of thinking, because it’s in a large-class, but what you’re managing there is the consistency across teachers’ input in class, formative feedback and so on. So yes, the group is smaller, but you’ve a whole curricular planning thing there to consider that I don’t have to consider when I have a big group. However, when the big class is split into those smaller groups of 20 or 30, you know who you have in your group, so you can plan for those groups of 30, whereas in my big class, I don’t know who’s talking to whom, so I can’t manage it at that level.

Anna: And we mentioned the think-pair-share, we would use that quite a lot, but using the same activity, but with lots of different kinds of materials. So it might be looking at samples of children’s work, for example, and within that group in the large lecture theater, we might roughly divide the room into four areas, and each quadrant, let’s say, would look at a particular piece of work, and then we’re looking for them to listen carefully when we take feedback from, it might be the same child’s piece of work, so they’re invested in kind of hearing of the other groups, while they might actually only be actively working in their small groups or in their pair on one piece of material, but they’re actively taking feedback from the activities that the other learners have been engaged in in the large-class. The other thing that Ann Marie uses really effectively is the panel idea within a large-class, bringing in a panel of speakers. I think that’s particularly effective in that large-class.

Ann Marie: It’s highly engaging. So with one of my groups, the module is on inclusion and inclusive pedagogy and inclusive practice in education, all contested terms. So to model the multiple perspectives, I bring in panels of guest speakers. So for example, I have one panel of parents and young people who talk to my students about their experiences of primary school. Now you could hear a pin drop [LAUGHTER] in those classes. It’s highly impactful, 10 times more impactful than me summarizing what the literature says about parental and student experience of inclusion. It literally demonstrates multiple perspectives. I have a second panel then, with teachers in different teaching contexts, and a third for a different team. So in other words, with the very large class, that’s this particular final-year group, every session is different. So I use three sessions where I have panels, I’ve two or three workshops where we have asked students to engage in a particular task, and a couple of sessions that are much more like a traditional lecture, albeit that we try and find a space for them to do something in that session, just to break it up a bit. So no two sessions are the same, and I try as well with those very large classes. Your question to Anna was about losing students, particularly in first year. I do wonder sometimes, is it not so much the class that’s large, but the program, it’s not just your module and your class is large, but lots of classes are large. There’s a multiplicity of experiences those students are trying to navigate. The large-class context can be the glue that brings some of those isolated learning experiences that are at a modular level back to the class. So for example, I think, after reading week next week, two of the co-taught sessions are with people who are teaching other modules with this same group. So they’re coming in to my session, we’re going to co-teach the session. They’re going to come in and make the links with what they’re doing in their modules, and I’m going to make the links within our module so that they’re getting an opportunity to see two of us working across the program, as well as somebody like myself and Anna, who are within the same module, but these are people in different modules. I do think that goes back to helping students make the links and the engagement for them to see that the two teachers in two completely different modules are now working together.

Anna: The other thing I would just add, in terms of Ann Marie’s panel, for example, in the panels that Ann Marie brings in, there is something particularly impactful of those real stories, real lived experiences. When they are heard in a very large context that enhances the impact of the experience for example. Because we were just talking there a couple of days ago, Ann Marie and I, and sometimes we talk about engagement, and I don’t know whether it’s the case in other universities, but a big focus on active engagement. There’s almost an assumption that that means that learners have to be up and about doing something, writing something, engaging with a student response system like Vevox or Menti or whatever it is, listening and listening to a powerful story like that, particularly when you’re part of a very large group, and it’s a powerful story, it enhances the impact of that, in fact, being in that large group.

Ann Marie: It does. And by the time we got to our third panel last week, one of the students in the group was on the panel. She came to me with something that had struck her, and she agreed, with a little bit of persuasion to be one of the panelists. And that’s powerful.

Rebecca: It always strikes me how, when I’ve had guest speakers come in and talk to students, that they can say the same thing that I’m going to say, but if someone else says it, it’s truth.

Ann Marie: Because it is their truth. So all of our speakers are speaking from personal or professional standpoint. It’s their lived experience, whether it’s personal or professional, whereas sometimes we might be talking about someone else’s experience sort of a step away. And I suppose that’s another thing, especially in the arts classes, is sharing yourself with the students and just giving them an insight into your experience. In my case, my past teaching experience, my own experience of my son’s engagement with school and little hurdles he’s had to hop over and those sorts of things and that, in terms of relationships in class, makes a difference as well. You suddenly were human, rather than the person who popped in for 50 minutes, dropped the pearls of wisdom and then runs out the door again.

John: What types of formative and summative assessment techniques have you found to be most successful in large-class instruction?

Ann Marie: I suppose some of the things we’ve mentioned are based on formative assessments and feedback. So a lot of those workshop type scenarios, and even when students are working on different case studies and different items and materials on the Moodle page, we will then provide feedback on all of those items, including the ones they’re not using. And sometimes I’ll use a little screencast, just a 3, 4, 5 minutes, to explain and fill in the gaps by feel from the class that they maybe they haven’t got it or whatever. Summative assessment can be trickier, and I think one of the challenges higher education teachers face with very large cohorts, the biggest one might be around the assessment and being fair, being manageable and so on. So I’ve grappled with this. I’m still grappling with it. I’ve two very, very large-classes, and I do something different with each and that’s because of the amount of content in the module that I’m part of. Other people who also have assessments in it and so on. With that fourth-year group, I have found that taking on the perspective of Universal Design for Learning in designing assessment and coupling that with authentic assessment approaches and viewing assessment as learning rather than of learning has changed how I experience the assessment process. So with that group that I have at the moment, for example, I have 430 students. I’m going to get, this December, about 140 assignments across all of them, a fair bit of work in that, in terms of marking and feedback and everything. I won’t deny that, but the most interesting set of assignments that I get, because they’re all doing something different, and they all present, so I’ll get websites…. They’re all creating a resort for a named audience, but they can create it in whatever way they like, and they really seem to buy into it, because they’ve got so much choice. So with that group that works, the multi-layered choices work, who to work with, what to do, who to write for, because they’re fourth years. But with my first-year group, which is 450 in it, I don’t offer those same range of choices. In that case, they have a fair bit of assessment in that particular module, so I have to cut my cloth to be fair to the student, and I’m not entirely happy with the assessment I have. It’s very applied. It’s based on case studies. We do similar, aligned case studies inside the class, in a workshop style format. They’re the co-taught sessions that Anna and I do, and then they do something similar themselves, but I still haven’t nailed that large-class first-year group, giving them options around what to do, who to work with, isn’t as fair as it is for the fourth years just because of where they’re at in the course of the size of the module they’re engaged with. So that’s my next task now, is to have a think about that and changing that before I meet that particular first-year group. It is challenging, but I would say particularly with my fourth-year group, the Universal Design for Learning Framework and applying that range of choices slowly and iteratively over time to see what worked, has completely changed my assignment/assessment marking experience, completely.

Anna: The other side of that coin, of course, is the feedback piece, which, as Ann Marie has said, the assessment piece at scale is particularly challenging. So is feedback. And again, it’s a bit like sometimes I do a lot of group feedback using exemplars as proxies for feedback. Sometimes, I think lots of higher education teachers have the same experience. Students nearly need to be hit over the head and told, this is feedback. This is relevant to you, that unless it’s actually on their assignment. And I know investing a lot of time, Ann Marie has said, in that first-year model where we’ve done the co-teaching, we model the task, we scaffold the task. There’s a lot of connections between the Moodle DLE in the classroom, so there’s lots of exemplars there. And that took an awful lot of time, sort of building that up when we started first, a lot of time, but it doesn’t change. I think of the example, Ann Marie, where we were giving feedback, asking students to write S.M.A.R.T. learning targets. That’s kind of a universal element, for example, in teacher education. And the investment in time in giving collective group feedback on the DLE, on various iterations of less and more specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound targets. It’s a lot of investment time initially, but it doesn’t change.

Ann Marie: Then it’s done. It took us hours the first year, then it’s done. You get the same type things back from following year groups.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking: what’s next?

Ann Marie: Well, we are rethinking PHELC. So we’ll watch the space for that. We just need to think about where we might go with that, how we might expand it, maybe beyond us, and what we might do above and beyond our symposium. And then, as I said, in terms of the large-class teaching, it’s always what’s next. Like no two years are the same. We change. I love changing it. I’m basing the feedback from students as well. Each iteration of a module, the delivery of a module, might be a little bit different, and I am hoping, particularly with that fourth-year module, that the assessments that some of the really excellent ones, I’m developing a repository for those, which I’m hoping will become a site for publication at undergraduate level, in the first instance, within the university, but maybe further afield down the line. That’s a long term, big project that I’ve just dipped my toe in the water off. So I’ll let you know. [LAUGHTER]

Anna: And I suppose, just beyond our own work, one of the things we mentioned was the co-teaching and how much we have enjoyed over the years working together, and that has mainly been in the large class. So for me, and I mentioned that, one of the things we’ve done was we invited people to come in and observe. So one thing that I’m really interested in is that opportunity to be in other large classes, to be that observer, to maybe support other colleagues in their large-class work and so on, and any opportunity I can get to co-teach and to work with other people out there, embracing.

John: Well, thank you. This was a fascinating conversation, and we look forward to talking to you more in the future.

Anna: Thank you, John, and thank you Rebecca, for the opportunity. This was great.

Ann Marie: Absolutely. It’s been lovely to speak with you. Thank you for inviting us.

Anna: Indeed.

Rebecca: Well, thank you for some great ideas.

[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]

366. Connecting to Core Values

Engaging and motivating students starts but doesn’t end with inclusion. In this episode, Bryan Dewsbury joins us to discuss ways of connecting class content to students’ core values to prepare students to productively engage with their communities as we work with our students to make our disciplines more equitable.

Bryan is an Associate Professor of Biology at Florida International University. He is the Principal Investigator of the Science Education and Society research program, an Associate Director of the STEM Transformational Institute where he directs the Division of Transformative Education, and a Fellow in the John N. Gardner Institute. Bryan is also one of the co-authors of The Norton Guide to Equity-Minded Teaching. He is the developer of a free MOOC on Inclusive Teaching, offered through the HHMI Biointeractive and Science and Education Society. Bryan is a highly regarded keynote speaker and workshop leader.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Engaging and motivating students starts but doesn’t end with inclusion. In this episode, we discuss ways to connect class content to students’ core values to prepare students to productively engage with their communities as we work with our students to make our disciplines more equitable.

[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 Bryan Dewsbury. Bryan is an Associate Professor of Biology at Florida International University. He is the Principal Investigator of the Science Education and Society research program, an Associate Director of the STEM Transformational Institute where he directs the Division of Transformative Education, and a Fellow in the John N. Gardner Institute. Bryan is also one of the co-authors of The Norton Guide to Equity-Minded Teaching. He is the developer of a free MOOC on Inclusive Teaching, offered through the Hhmi Biointeractive and Science and Education Society. Bryan is a highly regarded keynote speaker and workshop leader and he recently provided the keynote address at the Academic Affairs Retreat here at SUNY-Oswego at the start of the current semester. Welcome back, Bryan. It’s good to see you.

Bryan: Thanks for having me back. I hope that the welcome back means that I was good the first time. [LAUGHTER]

John: People are still talking about your keynote. They were really impressed.

Bryan: Well, I’m glad you all enjoyed it. How are you all doing?

Rebecca: We’re doing great. Today’s teas are:… Bryan, are you drinking some tea?

Bryan: I’m not right now because I actually did have some for lunch. So I’m on campus right now at FIU, Florida International University, and I had lunch with a colleague, and we did have some tea. So, does earlier count?

Rebecca: Sure. Do you want to tell us what you had earlier?

Bryan: I don’t know if I said this in the last episode I was here, but I grew up in Trinidad. I know I said that part, but when I was growing up, the main tea that at least my mother would buy is Lipton. Like it’s almost to the point where most of us didn’t know there were other types. [LAUGHTER] So you come to America and you see, like 19 labels in the grocery, but of course, because of that, that’s kind of the tea I like the most, because that’s just what I was used to. So when I do see it, I like to have it. I’m not a big tea drinker. Oh, that sounds like sacrilege to the podcast, but when I do drink tea, that’s sort of my preference, and it’s just maybe kind of a nostalgia thing. So that’s what I had.

Rebecca: That makes sense.

John: I have a tea which is new to me. It is a black tea with cherry from one of Rebecca’s local tea shops, and I forgot the name. I had to rush here from a meeting, so I didn’t get a chance to jot down the name. But it’s delicious.

Rebecca: Oh, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I’ve mentioned it before. I think the smell of the cherry teas are really good, which enticed me to buy them. And then I discovered I like, absolutely hate the flavor of cherry teas.[LAUGHTER] And so I gifted them all to John because he likes them. I have just a Scottish afternoon tea today. John.

John: Very good.

Rebecca: Nice and plain, without any cherries. [LAUGHTER]

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss your work on inclusive teaching. Could you tell us a bit about how inclusive teaching has become a substantial focus of your work?

Bryan: Yeah, so it’s a good question to answer, because, how do I put this? I actually don’t think it has. It has, but it hasn’t. Let me explain why. I do talk about inclusive teaching a lot, but the real focus of my work is education that is designed in a way that everyone can access it, and when they access it, they can be their best selves in that experience. And when they are their best selves, then they become this really engaged, loving, thriving participants in an evolving democracy. That in three sentences, if that was three sentences, that’s the thing we are trying to unpack as a group, not just through research, but through communication, through professional development. And so the inclusive part is a step towards that big a goal, because for the thriving to happen, for the access to happen, we have to sort of figure out, what are the barriers that are currently present that don’t allow people to be their best selves when they’re in a classroom, that don’t allow students to access certain institutions, that don’t allow them, even when they do access them, to graduate with the kind of credentials and the kind of mindsets and ways of knowing, ways of being, that allow them to understand how crucial it is for them to be engaged participants in a democracy. So inclusion is part of the riddles that we are trying to solve, but it’s not the end point, and to that extent, we have written a lot about it, I’ve talked a lot about it, but I think it’s important for people to know that our goals are bigger than that, without diminishing inclusive work, our goals are much bigger than that.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about your work in the STEM Transformational Institute in particular? I think it’s interesting in that role, how the role of democracy in your work, in moving democracy forward, fits into STEM because we don’t always hear those in the same sentence,

Bryan: Yeah. Well, yeah, or never, right? So I think that there’s two questions you’re actually answering. So I’ll talk about the institute first. It’s a pretty remarkable group. I’m one of several fascinating individuals who work here on the faculty side. Many of us, like myself, have a departmental appointment, whether it’s biology, engineering, physics, math, chemistry, and some other percentage of our appointment is with the Institute. What that allows is most… all of us, actually… were trained in some STEM discipline at the undergrad and PhD level. And so we can teach the classes. We can teach basic science classes. We can think about that ecosystem and that culture, right? Biology culture, physics culture, but discipline-based education research compared to other fields of research in biology, physics, or any of the above is relatively recent. And I think there is an understandable challenge of traditional STEM scientists in understanding and evaluating the kind of work that people like myself do. And so having a place like the STEM Transformation Institute creates several things. Number one, a community, for those of us who are thinking about education research in STEM to collaborate, to be in community, to ask questions, to write grants together. But also, there’s a mechanism for us when we kind of go through the ladder process for the STEM transformation Institute, to contribute some kind of understanding, to put all packages in perspective. Obviously, when you have this amount of faculty, and I think it’s maybe 20 of us, I can’t remember the exact number, some economies of scale benefits come with that. And so you can write bigger grants, because you have the intellectual capital there, you can have much more collaboration across the different STEM disciplines and with non-STEM disciplines. And then the Institute also has a unit called FIUTeach, which mainly focuses on training pre-service STEM teachers, a pretty robust, maybe the nation’s largest learning assistant program, undergraduate learning assistant program. And there might be some other pieces to it, but those are kind of the three things we tend to be known for on campus. So now, pivoting to your question about STEM and democracy, without taking up your whole podcast [LAUGHTER] giving a history lesson on Enlightenment thinking, the STEM instruction that we are seeing in classrooms today is really a product of maybe, I would say, a mix of the post-World War Two US higher ed-government alliance that kind of proliferated at that time, and the Humboldtian model of graduate education that became popular in the early 1900s. I think John Hopkins may have been the first place that some of that started and then some of the Sputnik-era stuff. And so the way too superficial summary of it is, if you were trained as a subject matter expert in STEM, your role in class was basically to tell people stuff. It wasn’t, perhaps said explicitly, but you were a big gatekeeper to that information. Because, remember, there was no World Wide Web, there was no Google search. In some cases, there wasn’t even really a lot of textbooks, right? And if there were, prohibitively expensive. So the only way you got to find out how big the glaciers were in in the Arctic was to hear the person who got on the boat to go there to talk about it. And there’s some other pieces to it. And I would encourage listeners to read the book Amateur Hour by Robert Zimmerman, because it’s discussed way more specifically and way better than I’m describing it, but there was some gender dynamics to this, because remember the normal schools that existed in the 60s and 70s, and who were the faculty there, and then, because of that association, how college faculty felt about teaching as a skill in and of itself. So there’s a brief period where there was some discussions about college professors getting trained. That died. [LAUGHTER] That didn’t last very long. So okay, I’m saying all of that to perhaps take us even further back to the role that Enlightenment thinking played in the Declaration of Independence, and more specifically, the influence that Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, in particular, who wrote Treatises of Government played an influence in Thomas Jefferson and some of the language that you see in the Declaration of Independence, and I’m thinking of one line in particular: “We submit these truths” to “a candid world…” Book recommendation: Jill Leporie These Truths, some of this is me interpreting her writing. It’s basically kind of saying, Look, man, we have these 13 colonies, we’re gonna try this out. We’re not gonna get everything right. We’ll see what happens and we’re gonna have to keep working at this. And in the same way, the scientific method and Enlightenment thinking comes with some expectations of critique, self critique, public critique, falsification, seeing new evidence and changing your mind on things and all of the above moving towards the sense of whatever you’re trying to understand. It improves over time because you are willing to keep refining and refining and refining. So in so doing, STEM, or specifically, science, has so much to teach us as citizens of a nation that is constantly trying to improve and what an improvement process looks like from a social perspective. And this is what I tell students: same when you collect data and okay, right now, it seems like you can’t disprove your knowledge, however you want to put that, but somebody’s going to come across and collect different data and critique those assumptions and improve on your methods. And that’s how we have vaccines that could be made in like two hours now, right? I mean, I’m exaggerating. So that same humility you have to display when you approach your intellectual pursuit is the same humility that I’m asking you to think about when you are in the public domain, when you are at church, when you are listening to news, when you are making consumer purchases, when you are listening to information come across your television. When you have to absorb all of the endless data that exists out there, that same critical mindset, but also mindset of humility that we ask of you in this culture of science and the culture of STEM, that has transferable lessons to other parts of how you live your life. And I think it’s a very under discussed component of STEM teaching, of how just STEM itself and science itself, the practice of science, is discussed with students. And I guess, Rebecca, what I’m basically said to you in five minutes is that we lean heavily into it, right? We talk about these things openly.

Rebecca: That’s great.

John: And we’re living in a world where we do need an informed citizenry, because there’s so many sources of information out there that are not so reliable, and the development of those critical thinking skills are incredibly important right now, given all the various sources of misinformation.

Bryan: And part of it too is I’m only… I don’t know if I should say only… but I’m 44, so I’m old enough to have grown up in a time when you had to go to an internet cafe to check your email for $20 an hour. We lived through this just remarkable transition of information ubiquity. I mean, I had a Encyclopedia Britannica set from A to Z like my mom used to joke with me, I would read it like a book. That’s how nerdy I was, right? And I remember looking at those 18 books or whatever, and thinking like, how much information is in here. You have that times infinity at the click of a button. I would just wonder, if we don’t pause long enough to reflect on what a sea change that is in terms of having easy and quick access to information. Now, that’s not the same thing as having knowledge. [LAUGHTER] So now the challenge has shifted. So if maybe initially it was being able to access that information and knowing all of the beautiful things that is happening around the world, now it’s how do you sift from all of this to pick out the information that’s useful, that’s credible, that’s reliable, that’s truthful. And I think our teaching and the way we think about teaching needs to shift with that. I don’t know, man, sometimes John, Rebecca, I have all due respect for online classes, this is not like a for or against, but I’ve always taught in person throughout my career, and I just absolutely love it. But as a commodity, and using the class that I teach a lot, intro bio, all of the learning outcomes I have in my syllabus, all of them, you can find a very good lecture on YouTube for free. You’re not gonna find maybe the test bank and all that. I get it, all of that, right? So in terms of accessing the information that we talk about in the class, the tuition and the three credits, and Bryan Dewsbury, I’m not a buyer. You just need a laptop and good working internet. So what is the added value I provide? What’s the added value that the institution provides by asking you to fork over a tuition check and housing and gas money to get to campus and all of that stuff, to physically be here. And I’m really curious, just as a thought experiment, if you were to put that question to all instructors, what will we say? What can we honestly say? Maybe 10,15, 20 years ago, you would say, “Well, how else would they know how DNA replicates? [LAUGHTER] I got a PhD in DNA, so therefore I have the right to tell you, right?” But I don’t think that argument holds as much water anymore, any water. And that, to me, is not perhaps the challenge, is the opportunity of the new information landscape.

Rebecca: It’s interesting that you bring up the encyclopedia in that kind of curated experience, but there’s also curated experiences online. Sometimes it’s hard to find those curated experiences to know that something’s of good quality, but even if it’s a curated experience, and even if it’s an inexpensive or free experience, you still have to have the motivation and the determination and the context, maybe, to put the pieces together to kind of figure it out on your own. [LAUGHTER] If you have something on the side, like you’re trying to do. How many of us have tried to sit and learn and do something on your own? I’ve been sitting and trying to crochet in the round in the evening, and I sometimes get frustrated using a video. [LAUGHTER] I want someone to show me how to do it, like, sit there and I can ask questions, and I want it to be interactive. This is just one example of just a thing that you want to learn from a person and have a dialog and be able to troubleshoot and have someone’s expertise to work through. And you think about the opportunity that you have as a faculty member to curate experience with readings and activities and classroom experiences, and then faculty maybe complain that students don’t engage in that full experience, and sometimes it’s because students can’t quite figure out what’s relevant to the next step or whatever. Can you talk a little bit about some of the ways that you might connect those assignments or other things that you’re doing in your classes to give students that relevance, or to actually answer your own question, like, what is it that we’re doing in our classes that give the students the reason why to come to class or why to do this experience, as opposed to do it on the side?

Bryan: Yeah, great question. Rebecca. So I’ll give you three examples that address your question, perhaps in slightly different ways. To me, another way of asking your question is when we do something in a class or when we have things in our syllabus or curriculum, why is it worth doing? That is a fair question for somebody, especially at the prices college is asking students to pay. That is a fair question to ask. And there are perhaps too many situations, maybe not intentionally, where there is an implicit eat your vegetables approach in that, “because I said it’s worth doing,” right? Like I have the great book, and I’m the PhD, and it’s worth doing, and so therefore you should believe. And I think my first part of my answer to you is to make that “why” more explicit. So we start the class not even talking about bio. First assignment is a reflection assignment that I shamelessly stole from National Public Radio called “This I Believe,” it’s on, it’s a public website, it’s: thisIbelieve.org/guidelines and the prompt asks… I’m summarizing here: “Describe the values that shape your deepest passion.” Before we get into anything technical. I want us to start this community by reflecting on what your why is, because your why, if you understand that clearly, or if you at least begin the mental process of exploring that, that is a big of why you’ll be motivated to be your best self, pursuing the technical piece. This could have easily been, you show up and I give you a bunch of materials, you show me if you know it or you don’t know it, and move on. But forcing you to really ask: “Well, why pre med? Why medicine? There’s so many things you could be doing in biology. There’s so many other great things you can be doing with all the other majors in this school. Why that choice?” So that sort of begins a very particular kind of conversation, because I expressed them my why and why I chose to be a professor, and why that was exciting to me, and why I love this class and love them. The second thing is, when we’re doing certain activities, regardless of what the subject matter is, they are implicit behaviors in how you do a technical task and get a solution that I think in a lot of times in a lot of teaching approaches, it happens as a function of the class, but it’s not made explicit that those behaviors are very important skills that you should be developing as you go forth as a technical expert. So when you put students in groups, for example, it might make things easier to grade, because now you’re just doing x divided by four or whatever assignment, there’s that piece. And I understand, like, you know, what the active learning literature says about group work and things like that, but what you’re really doing, my friends, is you’re teaching people how to work with difference. If you set those groups up right, If you talk about what positive group behaviors look like, what implicit biases look like, you are preparing them for a world of work, a world of engagement, where they will be in one type of group or the other. I can’t think of a profession… well, I could think of one, but not that many… where you will essentially be solo and so some of those group behaviors that really makes group work effective, like active listening, respecting silence, by hearing different opinions, being willing to accept critique, being able to give respectful critique. We have whole discussions about what that’s like and why it’s important. So it’s not just going to groups, and we hope everything works out. It’s going to groups, and this is a thing, and in order for this thing to go, well, let’s actually have a discussion about why that thing matters. The third part of my answer is, at selected points in the semester we try to make, or not try, we make very clear the ways in which scientific practice intersects with society. And this is where I think people get a little confused, perhaps, about what we mean by inclusive or equity-minded teaching. I remember once I saw on Twitter, and I know Twitter is what it is, right? But somebody put a statement that said, what is so inclusive about the mass of boron? [LAUGHTER] And I get where they’re coming from. I get why they would say that, but it, of course, betrays a misunderstanding of what we mean when we talk about inclusion in a classroom, there’s a lot of technical things that we discuss in an intro bio class, and not everything we talk about, we sort of bend over backwards to then relate it back to some social context. But there are things that do allow themselves to make that connection very, very clear. And the connection basically comes down to: science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Science is done by people, and the people is human beings who ask those questions. Human beings ask those questions, and human beings decide which questions to ask. They decide which questions are the important questions to ask. They decide when they ask those questions, and they carry out studies, they decide how those studies are conducted. And they don’t only decide how those studies are conducted, they interpret what data they collect from those studies, and they write the narrative that comes out of that analysis, that comes out of that interpretation. This is not to demonize any particular individual who does anything on any one of those steps, but it is to point out the reality that since the bridge between the existence of nature and life and life science and our understanding of how this works, if the bridge is the human being or human beings plural, who help us to understand that, then by definition, the social positioning of that individual, of those individuals, may sometimes color how we come to understand the world as a collective. And we have slight examples of this: that they took, what 10, 15, years to ask what female chimpanzees did, because only men were in the field, right? And then we have very, very dark examples of this when we thought eugenics was a real thing and we were sterilizing disabled people in North Carolina. So throughout history and even today, we are saying to students that you will go forth to be some wonderful whatever you plan to be, whether it’s medical doctors, whether it’s health professionals, public health, whether it’s research scientists, whatever it is. And there will come a time when you will be a decision maker. You will be the one they come to to try to understand, how do we reduce COVID rates? How do we keep people safe? And when you get this, it’s important for you to understand that COVID doesn’t care who it infects, the differential rates of deaths and the differential rates of infection is not because the virus itself made that differentiation. It is simply following a pathway that was already constructed along social lines. And so if you really want to get at the root of the problem, you have to understand how those social lines were constructed. I’m not saying you have to get a PhD in Sociology, but I’m saying I have to know enough to be dangerous. And so that’s the argument that’s made to talk about Flint, Michigan when we talk about the effect of lead on the nervous system. That’s the argument we make to talk about Tuskegee when we talk about the study that took place there. And it’s not to say, and this differentiation is important, This is not to just say that “Hey man, America is a terrible place. We’ve done some really terrible things.” I mean, we have done some terrible things in history, but what the goal of that discussion is to say “but we can learn. We can do better.” We have examples of looking back and saying “That was a mistake.” As a social science researcher, every study I do, I apply for Institutional Review Board approval because those things happened. It’s unfortunate that those things had to happen, but now we know better. So it’s important that that piece is there because sometimes, unfortunately, the narrative or the interpretation of having these discussions is you’re just trying to make people feel bad. You’re just trying to make America to be this terrible place. And no, no, it’s a great place, because of the capacity to learn. So anyway, I hope that answers. Those are the three parts all woven together, Rebecca. I hope that’s fine.

Rebecca: Thank you.

John: So. much of what you’re discussing there is just finding ways of helping students connect what you’re teaching in classes to their own lived experiences, rather than just seeing it as this isolated material separate from the societal context in which it exists?

Bryan: Yes. Yes would be the short answer to that. And just to get into the specifics, right? I mean, I think sometimes a listener might hear like, “Okay, now do I have to go and find out every single student’s life specifics and find something that connects to that? And again, I’m not saying that that’s what you have to do. I think it’s good, and I appreciate that some people have very large class sizes, so sometimes some of these strategies can become overwhelming, depending on what your load is. But there are low-lift ways to get a sense of who your students are, where they’re coming from, what was the class they took before yours? If you’re at an institution where there’s sort of a very set matriculation pathway. If most of them are coming from local high schools, there are ways for you to get at least a summarized sense of the students that you teach. The other piece to it, though, is not just like, what’s your community, let me make it relevant. The classroom is also a place where you hopefully get introduced to an understanding of the world that you may not have encountered had you not come to that classroom. Part of the beauty of teaching is the ways in which we open students up to new experiences, new ways of thinking, including ways that may challenge the ideologies and ways that they had before they walked in the door. I’m not saying that this is what you were doing, John, but sometimes people think about culturally relevant teaching, and it gets trapped in a “if you’re from this neighborhood, let me talk about this neighborhood.” It’s like, well, no, it’s way more than that. It’s way more than that. One of the blessings of a country like this is the amount of diversity there is across so many lines, and you need to have to physically live next to the diversity, to know and learn and appreciate and just see its beauty. This is another place that college does it just through the classes, through texts, through learning, through studying, through inquiry, you learn more and more about the world and yourself. So it’s a little bit of both.

Rebecca: Along the same lines, one of the great things about being a faculty member is that same thing, that the students bring some really great experiences that we haven’t had either, and allowing them to bring their stories and experiences into the classroom allows us to continue to grow and learn on a constant basis too. It’s great when they can bring those things too.

Bryan: I mean, especially when you grew up going to internet cafes to use the internet. At this point, they’re coming in with high-speed computers in their pockets, right? [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Yeah.

Bryan: They grew up in a completely different environment. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: So you started off explaining how you get to know your students a little bit at the beginning, you start not even talking about biology in a bio class. Can you talk a little bit, maybe further down the line in the same class, and how civic engagement may enter into that same course later down the line?

Bryan: Yeah, so and this, you can perhaps consider this more social context than civic engagement, but I just so love this assignment and love the kind of discussions that come from it. We talk a lot in bio class about DNA as a molecule and all of that stuff, and it’s chemical structure. But we also spent some time talking about what led to the discovery of DNA. It’s a fascinating story. It’s a story about a time when there were not that many high-resourced labs in science. And so you can look up the book Double Helix, if you want to get a fairly brief version of it. But there’s also a story where if you were a woman in science, how the community responded to you, was very different to how they do now, although they’re pretty well documented cases where, not in all cases, that have changed, right? And so it does open up a conversation. First, we talk about the lack of credit that Rosalind Franklin initially did not get, but then we also talk about where we are now. There’s a really good documentary called Picture a Scientist solely focused on that issue, and we have discussions about why those things matter, and the role that power and hierarchies and power dynamics play in the experiences that people have. And I really want to emphasize, this is not to say I’m preparing you for a doom and gloom world and everything will be terrible. I’m preparing you for reality. And the reality is, I certainly wish for you a lot of great experiences, and I think you will mostly have that. But the reality is there’s still a lot of work to be done for us to get to the place of equity that we claim we have, [LAUGHTER] and the discussion of the gap between what we think we have and where we need to be is really my invitation to you to help work on that problem, but also to be aware of what may come when you get there. And I hope listeners take my comments in that spirit. So to the extent, Rebecca, that’s sort of an example of what you might encounter when you get out there in society. That’s one example of a conversation that takes place.

John: In addition to the issue of trying to make STEM classes more engaging for students, one of the problems that we see is that there’s some pretty significant differences between the DFW rates for first-gen students, for Pell eligible students, and students from historically minoritized groups, which is tied to differences, in large part, in the quality of education that they receive, and that serves as a barrier where many students enter into college planning to go into a STEM field, but end up not being as successful and then either transferring into other disciplines or leaving college altogether. What are some ways in which we can overcome the opportunity gaps that students face if they haven’t come in with as strong of a preparation for success in STEM?

Bryan: So a couple years ago, I published a paper about inclusive teaching methods and active learning methods, and a big crux of that paper, we talked a lot in the paper about what we did in the class and how much we cut content to really focus in on this sort of very social relationship-driven model of teaching. And in that paper, we not only reduced the DFW rates that you just described, John, but also when that group went on to future classes, they did fine, not just fine, they actually did better comparatively to peers from other sections. And some people, perhaps who hadn’t read the paper yet, kind of assumed that when we said everybody did fine, it meant everybody got As. And that is not the truth. We have a pretty high pass rate, but the class size average over the years that I taught it was in the 150s, it was a large class, and then maybe 10 or 15 years, there wasn’t a ton of students who… we had a very diffuse assessment model, a lot of quizzes, a lot of case studies and other stuff like that. And so what I’m saying that to say is that I don’t want people to feel that, for students who may come into your institution, who had 18 years of a social structure that wasn’t set up to engineer the best out of them. It is very difficult to right all those wrongs with one semester of an intro class. Now, at the same time, I can hold multiple truths in the same conversation, it is all well and good. In fact, this is just my personal belief, I don’t know if everybody shares it. I do believe, no matter what your circumstances are, even if they were really terrible, that within you there’s your potential to be great at science. There’s a potential to be great at biology. The question then becomes, given all of that history, what is needed to get you to a place where you can see that and take the reins of the chariot and go be your best self. And sometimes that may mean half of that first semester. Sometimes that may mean two semesters of Cs or failing a class and coming back. But the important thing is, I start from a place of the potential is there. I don’t know when the light will start to shine, but I’ve been doing this job for now almost 11 years, and I’ve been with students It took years for that light to switch. So what would happen, I can just tell you, on the ground with that intro bio class, for some of them that turn around point came like nine weeks in, and it’s one of the most satisfying and gratifying experiences as a teacher. When you see that student is like, “Ah, it’s not that bad.” And of course, by that time, there isn’t enough assessment for them to magically get an A between mid-October and December, but they might get to C plus, might get to B minus. They have to really nail a bunch of stuff. But here’s the difference, when they start the second semester, not with me, when they start the second semester of the institution, your now a different person. You’re not the same person who came in first year not sure of yourself, not confident, didn’t think you belonged in science, had a fixed mindset about math and all of that stuff. No, no, no. Now you know, yes, if I have the right strategies, I have proven to myself, and some of this is coming straight from motivation theory. I have evidence that if I take the right approach, good things will happen. And that’s why I brought up this paper. That’s why those C pluses in first semester turn into As in their second semester, because you’re not dealing with the same student. So that in a nutshell, is my lesson, in that there’s a whole discussion to be had about primary and secondary education. There are brilliant people having those discussions, read everything. Diane Ravitch writes, that’s a whole discussion we need to have in this country. There is also a role that institutions of higher education can play in that discussion, but specific to people who are privileged to teach classes, especially at the introductory level, that to me is a mindset I would like to have, assume the best, assume that it’s there, and know that the work that to teach, if I had to define teaching, to teach, is a degree to which you can walk a student from their current state of readiness to that place where they see what their potential can really be. That, to me, is the act of teaching, the content is part of the mechanism of the vehicle that drives that process. But teaching is a process, and that’s the process,

John: So encouraging a growth mindset is really critical to this process, it would seem. But the other thing is, you’d have to design your course in a way where you can’t use too many high-stakes assessments, especially early on where students could get deterred. You need to provide some mechanism so that students can, by the end of the class, get those Bs or C pluses and so forth, right?

Bryan: So, yeah, I mentioned earlier in this conversation a diffuse assessment model, right? And that’s done on purpose. So the psychology behind the high-stakes assessment, especially ones that are early. If it’s super high stakes and very early and they don’t do well a couple issues: One, mathematically, it makes recovery very difficult, you’re already down to a B minus after exam 1, you don’t have much wiggle room to even pass the class; the second thing is, and this is why I like to talk about teaching as a process and a relationship, because there’s a psychology to it… there’s a psychology that you need to understand, especially with first-year students, and what it means to transition into this environment. We don’t have enough time on this podcast today to summarize all the literature on emerging adulthood, on sense of belonging, on John Henryism, that all these things that are invisible, that are in the air and that even the students themselves may not be able to articulate, but it’s happening. And so what it means to be a teacher and be able to read the subtitles and see how certain behaviors are indicative of some of those processes happening, that’s the challenge. So your high-stakes exam, especially that first one, could be simply measuring the presence of those psychologies, not actual ability, not actual learning. You can just be capturing the fact that somebody is scared to death. You could be capturing the fact that somebody is carrying the weight of a generation at home and you must be a doctor, you must be this, you must be that. And that’s high stakes. This is playing out on that exam. They’re never going to say it to you that way, but it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. [LAUGHTER] And so part of the diffuse assessment model is to say, “Look, I am going to do my best to design assessments that accurately reflect learning, and the stakes are going to be high enough that I think you will take this seriously. But the goal of these assessments is to provide both of us, myself and you, the student, information that gives us some sense of where you are in this learning journey. And when we get that information, depending on what it says, we can have a discussion. We can have a specific discussion.” And I can say things like you do really well on recall questions, but you seem to struggle when I say explain. You have all of the language of this process in there, but it’s actually not coming together as a story. I can give you feedback that’s very, very specific, because with the sort of fixed/growth mindset dichotomy, giving you things that are changeable is what gives you an opportunity, it gives you an avenue to change your behavior. If I just said you need to try hard, what does that even mean? So I hope I’ve been underscoring the deliberateness of everything, everything, even from the way feedback is given, to how and why we set up exams in certain ways and how much we do. It’s all based on, again, this philosophy of teaching is a process.

Rebecca: I think we often use the word specific and say specific all the time, but you’ve just illustrated what you mean by specific, which is really helpful. So it’s really fun to talk, and we could talk forever and ever and ever, because there’s lots of fun things to talk about, and you’re teaching such interesting classes in interesting ways. But one thing we want to make sure we get to before we wrap up today is the asynchronous class that you’ve developed on inclusive teaching. Can you talk a little bit about this course and who the target audience is?

Bryan: Yeah, so this course was a collaboration between my program and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Biointeractive Program. It is based on a paper I wrote back in 2019 called “Deep Teaching in STEM.” The secret is that, yes, it says STEM because it went to a STEM journal, but the things we talk about in that paper really applies to all teaching. The other secret is that there’s nothing in that paper that’s particularly new. It’s just that we in STEM had ignored it for so long, and so perhaps that’s why we felt a need to re-center some of those ideas that, oh, by the way, it might be good to build relationships with your students and know who they are as people, and not just treat them as student ID numbers that need a grade. So that paper talked about five components that goes into what we call deep teaching, and those components then came to represent a module on that massive open online course. One of the key features of that course we wanted to really model was the very sort of introspective, spiritual, even soulful, way we think about teaching and we are asking listeners and participants in that course to be reflective. We wanted to model that in how the course itself was delivered. So we were very selective in who we asked to guest lecture, and the nine lectures are very, very long. We’ve infused at the end of each module. So there’s a main module, and there’s sort of four sub-modules that represent each component. Every main module, one of the sub-modules is an artistic piece. So we commissioned a painting. We had poetry, spoken word, even a Negro spiritual, and it was not random. They all thematically connected to what the module is talking about. And it was built in a Canvas shell, which is, as a MOOC, it’s free for anybody to access. But also what we’ve done is we’ve been working with a lot of universities who uploaded it onto their own Canvas shells and running faculty learning communities with a local facilitator going through the LMS. And the course has many practical, specific things. You want to think of a reflection in your course, here are some examples of prompts. So you want to have more transparency in your assignment, consider Mary-Ann Winkelmes’s framework. But what it also has, especially because of the nature of the way the course was set up, just a lot of moments for reflection. We didn’t want it to feel like a worksheet. You just go through this, do that. Go through this, do that. Like, when you hear somebody talk about motivation, like, think about when you were motivated, what made you motivated, and sit with that reflection, because that sort of empathetic approach is what really is going to make the course impactful for you. There are many 1000s of people who’ve just done it by themselves and have found a lot of meaning for it, but we’re really having a lot of fun seeing universities do it as a FLC on their campus. So that’s a nutshell. I think the web name is a little long for me to remember, but I know if you just Google inclusive teaching biointeractive, it should be the first thing that pops up.

John: And we’ll include a link to it in the show notes as well. I see that you have two books coming out in a little over the next year. Could you talk a little bit about those?

Bryan: Yeah, so it’s actually three, but one is not in the next year, right? So the two that I’m working on, one I’ve been collaborating with just a wonderful group, Peter Felton, Isis Artze-Vega, Dan Bergen, and Leo Lambert. Leo nd Peter wrote a book a few years ago called Relationship-Rich Education, which is just phenomenal, and that has led to a few follow ups. So we’re working on one of the follow ups to that project, so more details on that soon when that’s a bit further along. The other book, I’ve been collaborating with a colleague on campus. We’ve been interviewing people about telling personal stories, about times when they either felt a sense of belonging or have not felt a sense of belonging in STEM, and as somebody who comes from a storytelling background, from a literature background, the use of this discipline and this art form and this communication style, I think, is an underused approach in science in general, especially when you’re trying to convey something like that. And so I’m just very grateful for those people who’ve been willing to share their stories with us. So that will come on as an anthology, and, I guess dates TBD, but pretty excited about it.

Rebecca: Those both sound like really exciting projects. So we always wrap up by asking: “What’s next?”

Bryan: Well, I would say what’s next, like my most sort of next next, so I’ve been part of a group, a Gates Foundation funded group that has worked pretty hard over the last couple of years doing a landscape analysis that trying to identify what are some of the things that institutions around the country are doing to do equity-minded practices, especially in the intro classes. And that landscape analysis incorporated a lot of things like document analysis, interviews, data mining, and things like that, and we are launching the findings of our analysis as a report on October 25 in Washington, DC, at FIU, in DC’s campus there. It’ll be a free report. Obviously, there’ll be a Zoom link for anybody who wants to attend, and the report will be made available on our website. And we’re pretty excited about it, because there just is a lot of institutions doing great things out there. And to this point, we hadn’t seen a place where those great things were just collated in one place. And the obvious next step from this project is to take those great practices and say, “Okay, now that we know what’s good and who’s doing it, and how it’s worked, where they were, can these things all simultaneously exist in one institution? Can we learn from all of these best practices and say, if we have a goal of success for all on our campus, this is a place where we can look to to get some real both like comprehensive but specific ideas on how to make that happen. So that’s October 25 and pretty excited for that launch.

Rebecca: That sounds really exciting.

John: And we’re looking forward to hearing more about these books once they are ready to come out. Well, thank you. It’s great talking to you again, and we look forward to more conversations in the future.

Bryan: John, it’s always a pleasure. Hopefully next time in Oswego.

John: That would be great. [LAUGHTER]

Bryan: Alright, man, thank you.

John: Thank you.

Rebecca: 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]

364. A Quest for Success

Students experiencing academic difficulties are often encouraged or required to complete courses to improve their learning skills. In this episode, Andrew Buchmann, David Runge, and Sean Milligan join us to discuss how gamification is transforming one such course for students on academic probation. Andrew, David, and Sean are Academic Success Advisors at SUNY-Oswego.

Transcript

John: Students experiencing academic difficulties are often encouraged or required to complete courses to improve their learning skills. In this episode, we explore how gamification is transforming one such course for students on academic probation.

[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 Andrew Buchmann, David Runge, and Sean Milligan. Andrew, David, and Sean are Academic Success Advisors here at SUNY-Oswego. They are working on a revision of a one-credit course for students on academic probation that incorporates elements of Dungeons and Dragons. Welcome, Andrew, David, and Sean,

Andrew: Thank you for having us here.

Sean: Thank you.

John: Our teas today are:… Andrew, are you drinking tea?

Andrew: I am drinking a green tea. A pretty basic quality green tea.

John: …and David?

David: I do. I almost forgot, but I have a very nice ginger peach with fruity notes from Teavana.

John: Very nice. And Sean?

Sean: Yes, just a pretty classic Earl Gray, nothing too fancy.

John: And Rebecca?

Rebecca: I took a picture of it, John, because I have a new one today. I have Brodies famous Edinburgh tea.

John: As opposed to the Brodies Scottish tea.

Rebecca: Yeah, usually it’s a Scottish afternoon or a breakfast tea, but I got really daring and tried a different one. I’m not sure it tastes that much different.

John: And I have English breakfast tea, just the plain English breakfast tea, nothing fancy,

Rebecca: Not famous Edinburgh tea.

John: No, this is just Twinings. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your plan to add Dungeons and Dragons elements to your academic success course. First, though, could you give us a little background on this course? What does it generally cover, and how often does it mean, et cetera.

Andrew: So I can only really speak to where the class was as of fall 2019 because that’s when the Advisement Center took over teaching the course. And in that semester is when we did our first redesign of the course, and it wasn’t so much as a complete overhaul of everything, but just really trying to burrow down on what topics we wanted to discuss to get the most out of this eight-week long course. So the class itself really centers on academic success strategies, things like growth mindset, time management, effective learning strategies, things like that, and goal setting as well. And the idea is to help students who are on academic probation, or even those who aren’t on academic probation, maybe get some more skills in terms of academic success to help them be better in their other classes.

John: And you mentioned this class meets for eight weeks. How many hours per week does it meet?

Andrew: This is typically an hour-long class. Sometimes it varies, depending on if it’s a Monday, Wednesday or a Tuesday, Thursday section, and where it fits. But we’re looking at about an hour per class meeting.

David: We also have offered, in past couple semesters, at least a couple of asynchronous sections as well, to try to support those students who may not be otherwise able to fit the class section into their schedule.

Rebecca: So you mentioned the course is eight weeks. So is this a quarter course, meaning, like in the first half of the semester, or is it one that meets the second half of the semester?

Andrew: Typically, we’ll have more sections in the first half. So yes, quarter class, but in the both fall and spring semester, we will have a quarter two and a quarter four section, typically an asynchronous online section to capture any students who might have missed it in that first half.

John: What motivated the redesign of this course?

Sean: So I think a couple of different things motivated the redesign of the course. First and foremost, probably, we’re all pretty big nerds… I think we would admit to… and so we love video games, tabletop gaming, it’s a big part of our lives. And so like any teacher, I think we’re always looking for ways to sort of inject our own interest into our course as much as we can. But aside from the personal aspect, we each have a supplemental role as advisors here at SUNY Oswego. David, for example, is kind of our transfer expert and also supervises our student advisement guides. Andrew is our Starfish coordinator, which is our sort of advising platform that we use and rely on heavily. One of my supplemental roles that I’ve taken on recently is to try to increase the scholarly activity and the scholarly output of the advisement center. So as a happy coincidence, once I took on that role of trying to increase our scholarly output, I saw a call for papers for a Board Game Academics Conference and Journal. So at the same time, we’ve been noticing struggles with our students in Edu 104: a lack of engagement, poor grades, students coming in very, very late, unprepared… and really, this is not a course that should be difficult. It’s designed to help them be successful. And so seeing such high numbers of students failing, having very high absenteeism showed us that we definitely have room for improvement. So we devised this redesign to simultaneously tackle these issues that we’ve been observing in our classes. And we also did submit a proposal to that Board Game Academics Conference, which we presented at in July in Morristown, New Jersey, and we should be appearing in their online journal issue this February. So a couple of different factors going on at once. So our personal interest, putting some work out there in the board game academics journal, and really the most important thing, just trying to help our students and get them more engaged.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about how elements of Dungeons and Dragons will be incorporated into the course?

David: Yeah, definitely. So it’s important to note that when we first had a chat about this, we’re trying to figure out, how can we further engage students. And we thought about the concept of gamifying, making it exciting, fun. We looked at a couple of different games. We sat down together. First we thought, well, can we do a board game? Could we modify something like the game of life, the game of college life, in some way, with pit stops along the way? Could we do some other type of system or design? But one of the reasons we settled on Dungeons and Dragons, first of all was that we had a really big interest in it, but it’s also a very immersive experience. Someone who’s playing a proper Dungeons and Dragons tabletop game lives out that character, they have those experiences. So we were hoping by tying together course learning elements with a game of Dungeons and Dragons, we could implement what they’re learning into the actual gameplay experience. So what we’ve done, and we’ve started through our pilot this fall already, so the class is ongoing right now, we basically break the class down so that once a week, Sean, who is a primary instructor for the course, is teaching about whether it’s the learning strategy, engaging with offices on campus, how mindset plays into academics, and then the other day of the week, we’ll actually play a game of Dungeons and Dragons with our students, hoping to replicate or incorporate something related to that lesson into the class material. So for example, previous week, Sean had talked about mindsets and also how you approach things like failure or successes. So in that week, we actually had them in what is considered a combat scenario in Dungeons and Dragons, where their characters were fighting monsters, and as the game went on, we had them face tougher and tougher monsters to indicate that sometimes you might fail. But then how do you return and pick yourself back up? How do you adapt in those moments? Do you rely on your teammates, the fellow players, or do you try to go it alone? And how does that impact your outcome? Beyond just the two sessions, the learning each week and the playing each week, we also infused D & D themed items even into the course syllabus. So some of the language built into there, instead of saying you have this assignment, Sean used the language “You have this quest to complete.” We identified that you have a main quest, the required elements of the course, and then a side quest, kind of pick your own adventure in order to allow you to earn points through the course. And then he also offered some incentives to timely work completion or meeting extra tasks by offering feats and perks into the class as well, where they might be able to ask the instructor for extra help or extra time on an assignment if they did something in a certain way. So infusing it both into the actual what’s happening in the class, but even into just a structure and foundational design of the course, all meant to hopefully make it more engaging and exciting.

John: Do most students come into the course having some background and experience with Dungeons and Dragons, or is this something new to them?

David: So what we’ve seen so far, and those shared personally, most didn’t have a lot of experience. There was one student who came in with a lot of experience who was very gung ho and excited, and it’s really been awesome to have that student there, because they’re actually taking the lead in the class and then helping to encourage their peers, others who have never heard of it once in their life, and they’re learning it for the first time. So that also impacted a little bit of the course design in terms of how we structure the lessons, how we’re talking to them during the D & D sessions. We know we’re not playing with experienced players, but rather, we’re having to walk them through things as true novices as well. And actually, we’re lucky to have Andrew with us, because he’s never even played a game of D & D, so he offered a lot of great feedback for us, where I’m maybe the most experienced player in the group, and even my experience is fairly limited, truth be told, but he had really great feedback in terms of some of the language we were using in the design saying, “Hey, this wouldn’t really connect with someone who has never played before.” So he offered good feedback there too,

Andrew: Just to jump on to that point too, as someone who’s not played D & D, I’m very excited for this because it’s always been something that I’ve wanted to do, and a campaign has just never fired in my personal life. So here I have this opportunity to be a part of a campaign that’s also in alignment with the work that I do on a day-to-day basis. So I’m very excited to see where this ultimately goes. And so far, the sign is that it’s pointing in a good direction for us.

Rebecca: So how have students responded, especially those who are really unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons. I’m really curious what the response was on day one.

Sean: So I think the response on day one was a little bit of hesitation, which is to be expected, and we were ready for that. Students who weren’t quite sure what to make of it, how it would really be impacting their course experience. But over the last couple of weeks, when we’ve been playing more, we’ve been getting into more interesting scenarios, like we’ve been having combat scenarios with goblins and other monsters, the students have really gotten into it. David mentioned failure earlier as a class concept, teaching students that failure is a fact of life and we’re going to fail at some point. We all fail in different ways, big and small. But it doesn’t have to be the end of the road. It doesn’t have to be a barrier. If you have a growth mindset, you can view that failure as a learning experience. We had this one student who has never played D & D before playing, and she kept rolling a one when she went to attack this goblin. Now, if you’re not familiar with D & D, if you roll a one, it’s called a critical miss, and it’s very bad. You completely miss your opponent to the point where you might even end up hurting yourself or inadvertently causing some other chaos to occur. And she kept rolling a one, so having these instances of failure, but we turn that back into a learning experience of, “Hey, this is like what we talked about in Tuesday. Okay, even though you rolled a one, it’s not the end of the fight, and you can come back next turn and try to improve and do better.” And so the students have been laughing. They’ve been problem solving as a group. So I would say, hesitant at first, but definitely seeing signs of improvement there.

David: And I think that’s one of the important things, that with the game, it’s not just playing the game. We’re trying in every moment to tie it back to a lesson or their experience as a student. So when that student repeatedly had those failures, we paused the game for a second, stepped out of the game and said, “You know, sometimes you’re gonna have those weeks where things are going wrong, where you’re struggling in class, maybe in the residence halls, things aren’t going well, but then you can always keep in mind that there’s another turn coming up next, another class, another week, and how you respond to that is really important.” And in the case of that student, what was exciting was a turn or two later, she actually succeeded in defeating that goblin, and was really excited. It wasn’t just I rolled and I did it, but the sense of joy and just the excitement there, which was really kind of cool. The other thing that was important for us in setting up this course, as well, as we mentioned, a lot of students don’t have experience with this. Even when we were signing up for the class, we made sure to tell them right up front, this is going to be a gamified section. We’re going to be playing dungeons and dragons. We gave them the opportunity that if they had to take this, there was that other section of EDU 104, our quarter two course. So if they wanted to go into that, they could instead, if this seemed like something that they weren’t willing to participate in, because we want everyone to voluntarily try this new experience with us really being forced into it, especially since for some students, EDU 104 might actually be a condition of their successful academic probation. So we didn’t want to negatively impact anyone in any way.

John: Now, one of the things I was thinking as you’ve been talking about this is that students have, even if they’ve never played Dungeons and Dragons before, they do have experience of working through games, getting setbacks, learning from those and moving forward and having that opportunity to make that connection explicit between that and their experience in college, I would think could be a really effective type of connection that students might not otherwise make, because many other students on academic probation don’t come in necessarily with that growth mindset towards academics.

David: Yeah, definitely. I mean trying to find ways to encourage them, to excite them, to see sometimes things work, sometimes things don’t, but hopefully, again, the purpose being, if we’re teaching something in class, we want to form that connection, and the gameplay is the secondary nature. Hopefully it’s fun and engaging, exciting for them, but more than anything, it serves as a reinforcement that what they do in the class and the game is going to help them in all of the other courses as well. Again, an example from a recent play session. The other day, we had them solving puzzles where they were going through a haunted forest and they needed to solve different riddles and puzzles and whatnot. And our main play table, because one of the ways the class is designed, we have a playing table, and then observers, like a fishbowl style, and the observer is, to make sure that they’re not disengaged during the class, are writing reflective notes. What are they observing? What are they experiencing? We actually, for that class, allowed the observers to participate as well. So we gave copies of the puzzle to them too, so they could play. And we noticed a really interesting effect during that. The people who were the live players were struggling a little more to solve the puzzle, and the observers solved it more quickly. So we first gave them the opportunity, within the theme of the game, to say, would the players like to commune with the spirits of the forest, the people around them, to maybe get them hints or clues so they’re able to use their classmates to help them through those struggles. But then Sean tied it back to well, why was it that we think maybe those observers solved this quicker, right? It’s not for a lack of any intellectual ability. They’re all working really hard. They’re using teamwork. But maybe it was the stakes in that moment, the stresses that they were the ones who the focus was on, they felt more time pressures. They felt more confined to the bounds of the game, where the others in a more relaxed setting, were able to solve that and process that. So trying to draw together, “Well, how might that relate to your education, in studying versus test taking?” And hopefully that’s helping them to see those connections and then remember that when they go into their courses as well.

Rebecca: I know some of the motivations you had indicated at the start of this conversation for exploring some different options for this class, included student motivation, absenteeism, etc, and it’s still a bit early in the semester, end of week four, I think that’s where we are. How is it looking for students, are they attending? Are they staying motivated? Are they staying engaged so far?

Sean: So far, yes. Our results are very promising. I was actually just doing some quick calculations, and the last time I taught this course was a non-gamified version in spring of 2024, for the first four weeks, I had an average of 24% of my class absent on any given day, nearly a quarter of the class absent, which is a very high number. Currently, through the first four weeks with this gamified version, we’re seeing only 9% absenteeism. So that, to me, is a really promising sign that they’re more engaged, that they’re coming to class. Another interesting effect that I’ve noticed… we all know as teachers that students can be unprepared sometimes, they can show up to class without the most basic of writing utensils, paper notetaking supplies. One thing I have not reminded them a single time to bring their dice for our gameplay sessions, and yet they have always had the dice, not a single time has a student forgotten their dice. I think that, to me, is a really cool example of how the gamification is not only encouraging the students to show up and be present, but to be prepared for class and prepared for gameplay. And of course, we’ll be learning through the gameplay, so they are prepared for class and they’re bringing the appropriate materials.

John: Do you think that’s because it’s forming more connections across the students, they’re getting to know each other better, they’re seeing themselves as part of a team, which might also help lead to more success later, if students feel more connected to other students, and perhaps more generally, the institution.

Andrew: I can say, as an observer of this… so Sean is teaching the class right now, and because David has a lot of experience in the Dungeons and Dragons game itself, has been DMing for us, I’ve gotten to sit back and watch, and I’m seeing students who, in my typical section of EDU 104, who want to engage with one another. They are having conversations in the gameplay back and forth between what’s happening in the game, how to help one another. “Hey, you should do this because of your abilities. They would help us in this situation.” So even amongst themselves, the peers in the classroom are engaging with each other in ways that I don’t think I’ve ever seen them engage in a typical EDU 104 class. So I think the signs are pointing in a good direction for that for us, that maybe that’s a part of it, is they’re able to develop a more solid relationship with their peers, because in order to advance through the game, you have to work together. You have to communicate with each other, you have to rely on each other’s strengths to make up for your own weaknesses.

Rebecca: And some of my experiences of teaching gamified courses in the past, one of the things that I have observed is that students quickly discover that learning is not just about themselves, but they feel a sense of responsibility towards each other, and that they quickly learn or discover that they have to show up for each other and that they are responsible for each other, and they’re responsible for the learning of each other. And in some ways, it seems like gamifying this particular course is a really great opportunity to demonstrate this particular skill set.

Andrew: I think of a perfect example of this in the most recent game session where one of the students chose to do a maybe less effective move for themselves and their character, but knowing that, by using this move, it was going to make the enemy prone, and therefore allow his teammates, who could then use their strengths to tackle that particular issue or overcome that particular opponent.

John: This reminds me of a conversation I had a number of years ago with Bill Goffe, a former colleague who’s now at Penn State. He had introduced team-based learning into a class that had some issues with attendance before. And he said when students were working with teams and they were depending on each other, if one of them didn’t show up, there was positive peer pressure on them the next time saying, “Hey, we needed you. You weren’t there for us,” and it was a really remarkable transition.

David: Yeah. I mean, we’re definitely seeing, whether it’s in the game players in the class, generally, the students are relying on each other, and some of that is within the game, but sometimes it’s understanding the rules of the game. And you can see those who have picked up the game mechanics more quickly, because it’s a very hefty game, are helping the other ones going through that, and it’s not just, Hey, you’re on your own. You’re figuring this all by yourself, but we’re going to collaboratively do this, because your success is my success, and down the road, maybe in a later turn, you might save my character, where I might save yours as well. But it’s really cool to see them interact in the context of the game and how they’re learning and processing all this.

Rebecca: It’ll be interesting to see if those relationships carry out beyond the bounds of the classroom.

John: So are you still able to cover the same learning objectives you were before, but through this game mechanic?

Sean: Yes, we are, absolutely. And so that’s the purpose of dividing our assignments, or our quests, as we’ve rethemed them. We’ve divided them between main quests and side quests. So main quests are mandatory, being able to pick mandatory assignments the students must do allows us to ensure that the learning objectives are still going to be met. And the side quest gives students an opportunity to still meet the learning objectives, but showcase their learning in a way that they’re more comfortable with. So if one student is more comfortable picking the presentation sidequest, they can do that, but if another student is less comfortable with presentations and would rather showcase the same learning through a traditional paper, a poster project, or something of that nature, we allow them to do that. So that gives the students some agency over their own learning, which I think is a really powerful thing. So we’ve kind of designed the main quest and the side quest to make sure they’re still hitting the same objectives, but just giving the students options.

David: And to that as well, it’s really forced us, I think, as instructors, again, Sean being the primary one, but we’ve been consulting, myself and Andrew. It’s forced us to really distill down what are the most relevant, important, must know pieces of this class as well, because we’re functionally going from having this quarter chorus with two true instructional days to having half of those instructional and having half of an experiential day as well, where hopefully they’re gonna let them practice that. So we had that conversation at the beginning of the semester and said, “Are there lessons that we would have usually done that maybe aren’t quite as not, I wouldn’t say important, but for the purpose of success and growth and helping them to learn?” We might pull back up, or maybe we’ll add it into our Brightspace course, and we’ll have that be a supplemental reading or an add on reading beyond the class as well, to continue the learning.

Andrew: And I’ll just add to it, the onset of this when we were going through the redesign process of the curriculum for EDU 104, we put an emphasis on not changing what the course content was, if anything, it was just as David mentioned, refining it to make sure that we were allocating enough time for the experiential component of it. But our cornerstone of the class was, we are not doing this just to play D & D, although that would be great, and I’m sure some of the students would love to do that. There’s a purpose for this class, for students who are on academic probation, not only is it a requirement that they must complete it, but we really want them to take those learning objectives and then apply them to their other courses. Really, from the beginning of this project, we have focused on making sure that those learning outcomes stay true, whether or not this course is being taught through a D & D style gameplay or in its traditional sense, which we will be doing next semester. We are going to have both the D & D version of this, the traditional version of EDU 104 as well as the asynchronous online sections to make sure that no matter what the student’s preferences are and our options for modality, that we’re still meeting those learning objectives.

Rebecca: So you’ve really modeled a great opportunity for this particular kind of class, students on probation, where motivation is really key to stay engaged in a really important base. But are there other opportunities where a game-based strategy would be really effective?

Sean: Yes, absolutely. I think game-based learning can be really effective in a variety of classes across the disciplines. So when we were at the board game academics conference in July, I want to give this person credit, Dr. Archie Fields at the University of Calgary is a philosophy professor, and he also uses Dungeons and Dragons in his philosophy courses. One of the really cool examples he gave of how he can teach philosophy to students through gameplay is the example of the trolley problem. Many of your listeners, I’m sure, are familiar with the trolley problem, this famous thought experiment that I’m probably going to butcher this, but there’s a train coming down the tracks, and it’s currently on track to, unfortunately, hit, say, five people, but you have the option to flick a switch, redirect the train where it’s only going to hit one person. And so it’s this ethical and moral question of, would you intervene to save five people, but then you’re choosing to redirect the train or the trolley towards one person, and Dr. Fields restructured this as the dragon problem in Dungeons and Dragons, and actually has the students play out this moral quandary, which I think is really fascinating. And this got me thinking just about other classes and other fields that could use Dungeons and Dragons or other role playing games. If you’re in a zoology or biology class, you could be in an environment seeing animals and different species of wildlife in the game world, and observing their behaviors. We can think of so many examples. But I think it’s definitely something that’s transferable to other types of classes as well.

Andrew: Anything where the experiential component, for logistical reasons, financial reasons, whatever it might be, where you can dive into this world through the theater of the mind, and maybe some extra equipment that you might have on your hands too, to be able to provide some more visual details for this. But really it gives you an opportunity through that theater of mind to experience things that otherwise you wouldn’t get to in a traditional classroom setting, because you’re just learning about maybe the theory or doing some rote work based on whatever that concept is, but through something like Dungeons and Dragons, you have the opportunity to experience these things, if only in your mind, but still experience them. And then it gives students the opportunity to reflect on, “Well, how did it go? What were the benefits of doing it? What didn’t you like about doing it?” versus if you’re only ever dealing in theory, you might never get to apply those concepts.

David: One of the cool things we’re practicing this in a higher education setting. But there actually is a fairly rich history of this being put into the K through 12 setting as well. Wizards of the Coast, which is the parent of Dungeons and Dragons, they actually have a D & D beyond educators toolkit, and they offer an educators’ license where you can get some of the materials. Mention this you’re a teacher, and pick up some of those things for free, some of the resources, and then they have actually, akin to lesson plans, basically scenarios, pre-planned modules that you can then work with students in different grades as well. So the opportunity for that immersive, experiential, not just in theory, but trying it yourself, type of gameplay and learning, is there. And I think what we’re trying to do is bring it into our course in areas we’ve seen it be successful already.

Andrew: And what we’ve noticed, too, in our research is that there’s a lack of scholarship work with tabletop gaming and role playing, gaming used in classrooms at the college level, great expansive work in K through 12, but not as much in higher ed. So if there’s opportunities out there, this is definitely a place where scholarship can definitely come from.

John: Are you going to do anything differently next time, or does it seem to be working pretty well as it’s currently structured?

David: Some of it is the work in progress that we’re actively learning along the way. But again, as an example here, I was just talking with Andrew this morning about our observation that sometimes those observers in the classroom, we bounce back and forth between how engaged they are. So we tried having them use puzzles, doing reflective things, but I’ve been looking through ways that we can more greatly incorporate them, actually trying to draw some inspiration from AI as well, which I know is one of the big things we’re talking about in education now, and found some ideas to potentially have the observers, the non players maybe voice the roles of NPCs non-player characters so they can be directly involved. Maybe they do some of the dice rolling. Maybe they are assistants to the DM, the Dungeon Master, the one running the game as well. So that we’re not only having a collective group of four or five students in any given day be the main participants, but as much as possible, we can integrate everyone into each gameplay experience as well, because we saw how much more invested they were, how much more excited they were, rather than running the risk of distractions on the phone or other coursework, but we can be fully immersed in our class in that moment.

Andrew: We’re also still trying to work through the scaling problem of this, because right now, I think with the current EDU 104 section, I think 11 students are enrolled in the class right now, but that’s a manageable number, especially with our play versus the fishbowl groups. But I taught a 30-person section of EDU 104. I don’t know how I’m gonna make that work right now. That’s something we’ve got a lot of work to do to figure out how that would be incorporated in a larger classroom. Would we be doing more sessions with different groups? Would we have maybe a student take that role of Dungeon Master if they feel comfortable enough? So lots of ideas that we’re kind of spitballing to see what might work better as we scale this to a larger section.

David: That was a good point, where a typical D & D session, you’d have four to six players with one DM, the Dungeon Master, leading it. So if you have a much larger class, it can be really difficult. If I remember correctly from our conversation at that board game academic conference. The example we saw actually had the students running it as DMs in kind of smaller groups too, there. One of the unique challenges of EDU 104 is that it is a quarter course. It only has so many contact hours, so unless you have people coming in who are really familiar with the content already, you’d be trying to balance running the game while learning the game at the same time, which is why we decided to be the DMs for this time, because we already knew the rules.

Rebecca: Well, it sounds like a really interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing it with us, but we always wrap up by asking: “What’s next?”

David: So we still have a few weeks left in the course here, after which we’re going to dive through some of the information we get back, both on continued attendance and engagement in the course as well, and we’re preparing to then submit that paper based on some of our findings. Longer term, hoping to again replicate this for spring semester, and looking at how we’re going to adapt it. Do we look at trying to implement this into an online section of the course? There is a very rich history of text-based role playing games, online role playing games, but how do you then still incorporate the experience from student to student and make it effective so it’s not just a game, but still has that learning element as well. So that’s one of the challenges at least I know I’m working on, because I would likely be the instructor for the online section.

Sean: I’m just really appreciative of being invited on.

John: Thank you. This has been really fascinating, and I’m looking forward to hearing more about what you find at the end of the term.

Andrew: Thank you for having us, John and Rebecca.

David: Thank you very much.

Sean: Thank you.

Rebecca: 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]

363. Autonomy Supportive Teaching

Faculty have reported a decline in student engagement during the last few years. In this episode, Jed Locquiao joins us to discuss how the use of autonomy-supportive teaching can increase student motivation and engagement. Jed is an Assistant Professor in the Curriculum and Instruction Department here at SUNY Oswego.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Faculty have reported a decline in student engagement during the last few years. In this episode, we discuss how the use of autonomy-supportive teaching can increase student motivation and engagement.

[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 Jed Locquiao. Jed is an Assistant Professor in the Curriculum and Instruction Department here at SUNY Oswego. Welcome, Jed.

Jed: Hi, thanks for having me.

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

Jed: I am. I’ve got a classic, blueberry green tea.

Rebecca: It smells good because we’re actually all recording together in person, which we don’t get to do very often, which is really nice.

John: And I have a spring cherry green tea.

Rebecca: Always a good choice, for some… little known fact, I hate cherry tea.

John: But I have a lot of her old cherry tea now in the office.

Jed: A win.

Rebecca: A win for John, a win for me. [LAUGHTER] I have a good old fashioned Scottish afternoon tea.

John: Very good.

Rebecca: An old favorite, on a day when things [LAUGHTER] aren’t going right, you got to go back to the basics.

Jed: And here a pocket of ignorance on my part. What would that be? A Scottish….

Rebecca: Just, it’s called a Scottish afternoon tea.

Jed: Oh, okay.

Rebecca: a strong tea. [LAUGHTER]

Jed: Okay.

John: We’ve invited you here today to talk about how you have incorporated autonomy-supportive instruction into your classes. First, though, could you define what is meant by autonomy-supportive instruction?

Jed: Thanks for inviting me, John. But yeah, let’s talk operating terms first. So autonomy supportive instruction, it’s behaviors that are often done by a person in authority, in this case, a teacher, where they take on the perspective of someone under their charge, their supervision, in this case, the student, and reduces the extent of demands, of coercion of “you must do” prompts on that particular someone as they go about doing tasks to the maximum extent possible. Autonomy-supportive teaching, then, refers to instructional moves that are student focused from a position of curiosity rather than judgment, and are responsive to students as they engage in those learning tasks just in time. So as they see that students are flatlining, they do something about it. As students have questions, they do something about it. As students seem to be kind of trailing off, not necessarily engaged, they do something about it. It’s being responsive to the students as they are.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about what research says about the benefits resulting from autonomy-supportive teaching?

Jed: That’s a great question. So, with our best empirical evidence, the research points to three major things at the student level, consequences for students and for instructors themselves. For students, autonomy-supportive instruction increases raw achievement. They found that there’s correlative studies that, surprisingly enough, students who feel like they have more choice, more control, more sense of ownership, which are all facets of this thing called autonomy, they tend to do better in schools. Now you might be wondering, what’s the mechanism underneath this, and I think we’ll talk about it later, but it’s motivation. We tend to start and stick with things more when we feel that there’s some sort of personal significance attached to it, when we assign meaning to it, or when it’s just fun, which are both elements of this thing called intrinsic motivation. So at the student level, broad treatment, we also have evidence that speaks to this idea that autonomy increases teacher-student rapport. Students above and beyond say that, hey, this class where the teacher gives me a little bit more choice, a little bit more opportunity to assign meaning, they tend to respond favorably to those teachers. They tend to see them as belonging more in their camp, rather than this us-versus-them sort of relationship. At a teacher level, self efficacy. A lot of teachers who engage in more of these autonomy-supportive instruction feel more competent. They feel that they’re more ready, more prepared to anticipate students, to plan and also to interact and react to students as they are as well. And they also just feel more positive about their teaching craft. Rather than going in and feeling like there’s a cudgel, this sort of pressure bearing down on them, they feel actually a little bit more positive, more ready to take on the day and from one faculty member to another, you know, it’s that sort of switch between, “Oh, I have to go back to work,” versus “Oh, I get to go back to work.” And we have studies that speak to that as well.

John: So you mentioned that this can improve student motivation, and tied that to intrinsic motivation. Could you talk a little bit more about how intrinsic motivation comes into play when you’re engaged in this type of instruction?

Jed: So this autonomy supportive instruction is by and large influenced by this framework called self-determination theory, by Ryan and Deci way back when. And there’s a bunch of mini-theories around it, but the big one was they were trying to figure out, why do some people start and stick with things without clear cut instrumental reward or benefit? Why do people pursue hobbies? Why do people stick with activities where they fail time and time again? I’m gonna draw from my own experience. Why do you keep skiing when you fall face first? What is the mechanism that explains that? There’s no clear cut reward. So they found out over the course of decades of research that, oh, there’s this thing called intrinsic motivation, and what it is is when you’re doing things out of pure fun, interest, and a sense of mastery, that satisfaction of doing things for the sake of doing it. They also found out that there’s other types of motivation called extrinsic, and I don’t want to get all technical here, but extrinsic motivation is on a continuum as well. And on one end, you’re doing things because you’re going to get something. You’re either going to get a grade, you’re either going to get approval from your teacher. And on the other end, you’re doing it because it’s important. It’s a part of who you are. I study because I am a studious sort of student, or I’m the person who will stay up late because I’m the person who won’t let my friends, my groupmates, down, that kind of thing. And what we found is those, and it’s called autonomously regulated motivations, intrinsic and something called identified, those types of motivations, above and beyond, predict robust, optimal, enduring activities. That also translates to learning as well. The students who have somehow managed to get it sooner than later that if I assign personal meaning to this task, if it’s inherently interesting to me, if it’s important to me, or the students who say this is just fun, they tend to do really well, whatever the task is, in work, in life, in leisure, in studying and learning as well. So the reason why we care about the relationship here between autonomy and intrinsic motivation is this, autonomy is one of the nutrients, one of their major claims with this theory is autonomy is one of three major psychological nutrients that are the conditions to those more autonomous motivations. And it would be autonomy, a sense of competency, and connection with others. And of the three, they found that autonomy has the most outsized influence above and beyond.

Rebecca: So, one of the things that I think is often really interesting when we’re interviewing our colleagues is to find out, if we were to go into your classroom, Jed, what would it look like when you are acting in this way, when you’re really incorporating these techniques into your teaching? What does it look like?

Jed: I think we can look at autonomy-supportive instructional practice, or ASI from a planning level and a very moment of instruction level. So at the planning level, I, as much as possible, try to embed choice. If there’s one takeaway, if there’s one major practice or instructional move that you can embed in your practice, it’s choice, choice, choice, choice, choice. And what does that look like? Well, at the planning stage, we have several projects. One of them is a weekly assignment. I think everyone here does a weekly sort of assignment, a check in, an exit ticket, an exit slip. For this exit ticket, what I have is the students can work by themselves, with a partner in groups. They can choose one of 10 different options, modalities, to submit it. It could be your classic exit ticket. It could be a Venn diagram, a graphic organizer. It could be a report. It could be a recording. And then even at the end of all that, they have the option to just tell me if none of those fit, and they can make their own option going forth. So I try to embed choice, or I strive to embed choice at the planning stage, where they have many different means and options to submit assignments. And a big part of our work is also grading assignments on time. I’ve embedded choice in my classes, where they have 24 hours near the end of the semester to submit outstanding items. Now I recognize that poses a lot of [LAUGHTER] risk for me as the instructor, but what I find is, if you give students flexibility for time, they make good on it and they treasure that, they don’t abuse it. At least that’s what I found, knock on wood, so far. So there’s that. At the planning stage asking yourself, “How many opportunities can you embed choice> a sense of ownership?” Oh, yeah. And the prompts themselves and the assignments, I have a list of criteria for the students to address, but after that, it’s really up to them to make sense and to translate those criteria. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, one of the assignments that I have in my class is that they talk about a student and their characteristics and what that means for their instructional practices. That’s it. That’s the criteria. And they can choose any form. They can choose any sort of approach to that. It could be a case study, it could be a mock midterm test. It could be a whole host of different things to speak to that particular prompt. Now, in terms of in-class instruction, I think one of the major moves, instructional moves, that was mentioned by these folks who have researched this, is to verbalize to explain your rationale for why you’re doing things. A big chunk of autonomy is making it meaningful to yourself. And I think we presume that our students know why things are important to begin with. It would help for them to hear an expert other explain why they’re doing a skill, why they’re reviewing a session in the PowerPoint, or why they’re submitting a certain assignment over another. So over the course of my lectures, if you were to stand there as a fly, or whatever a fly does in a class, you’d see me explaining my thinking out loud, verbalizing it. I find myself like, “Am I over talking, or am I over explaining?” But no, no, no, I need to remind myself that us, as a professor, we know a lot more than they do, and it would help for them to hear an expert’s take. We’re going from this topic to this topic because we need to get a handle on this before we proceed any further. Those sort of language statements or, “Hey, you might be wondering where we are at right now. Why are we talking about this? Let me explain to you why this is important.” So the first one major instructional move is to engage in those explanatory rationales. And another major principle that is also shared among scholars, among researchers in this is to use Invitational language, and that could mean stuff like, “I get that this is confusing, and I know why it might be confusing, and let’s talk about that right now.” Or “I totally understand.” Or, “Hey, if this is at all boring to you, or if this doesn’t seem important to you, please share it.” It’s this idea of engaging in Invitational language as well, because the goal is to support internalization, where a student is probably paying attention to the lecture because they must, they have to, and engaging in the sort of language to push that from consequence to “hey, I think there’s something more important to this particular unit, this discussion point,” but yeah, so we can see, at least in my classes, you can see autonomy, supportive instruction at the planning stage a nd at the very moment of instruction stage, embedding choice and inviting the students to take ownership when it’s confusing for them, when they would want more clarification, or when it just seems like it’s not at all important.

John: When I was reading about autonomy-supportive instruction, much of it struck me as things that are talked about in other areas, such as inclusive teaching, the transparency and learning and teaching approach of Mary-Ann Winkelmes, as well as the UDL approach. But what I found distinctive about that was a focus is entirely on giving the student that motivation and the other things are brought in as support. Is that what’s most important about this approach, that sort of focus?

Jed: That’s a great connection, John. Well, let’s take UDL. UDL is about anticipating and designing instruction to the maximum extent possible so it fits everyone. I think we forget in our discussions of UDL, of this crucial piece of motivation. You could set everything up for success for a student, but if they come into that learning activity without any sort of push compulsion to even start it, then there’s no point in like the scaffolding. All the scaffolding in the world is there, but they won’t necessarily enter the space of using it. Motivation is a key piece of that. Because I think if you were to ask any instructor right now, just do a random sample, what’s the biggest issue? It’s disengagement, which is a major issue of motivation. So yeah, absolutely, there’s a connection here. UDL talks about meeting everyone where they’re at. Motivation, saying, all right, you got to meet people at that spark. And crucially, it’s not just a spark, it’s how do you maintain it? How do you keep them engaged? How do you keep them going on despite setback, and the research on motivation helps fill in that gap, I think.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about what research indicates about whether or not participating in professional development on autonomy-supportive instruction has persistent, long-term effects on instruction?

Jed: Like with any teaching skill, it can be learned, but it requires serious self reflection on our part, and a serious commitment to it. And why do I say that? Because a lot of us, when we start out new at this teaching craft of ours, we teach how we learned, and a good chunk of how we learned was through something called the controlling style of teaching, and where, rather than Invitational language, rather than giving choice, rather than the whole set of seven principles associated with this thing called ASI, we tend to try to present coercion, or we try to use demands. We try to tell a person that this is the way that this must be thought and said, and this is the only way of doing things, “my way or the highway” sort of instruction. So it’s hard to break habit. That’s what I’m trying to get at, because we do teach the way we were taught, but thankfully, we have research that speaks to this idea that when you try to change one thing in your practice, even just one thing, something where you say, I’m going to try to give the students more choice in this way, in this assignment… it’s a low-stakes assignment, I’m going to give them choice. We find that once you start that small practice, it tends to go into your other practices. It’s doable. Autonomy-supportive instruction is a skill that we can pick up. I initially taught the way I learned, which was through that controlling style, but I realized that, okay, I want to try relinquishing. So I started out giving options for those exit tickets, low-stakes stuff, and then I started applying it to the bigger stakes assignments as well. And then I started messing around with the assignment expectations, the submission expectations, too. Maybe they don’t have to submit everything week by week. Maybe I can give them two freebies. And I’ve told the students that they can use those freebies strategically, giving them more choice, in recognition that sometimes life happens. Life will happen a lot, and maybe they’re going to be busy during midterm weeks as well. Maybe save it for them. You have choice. You have choice. It was once a little trickle of trying to embed more opportunities, using more Invitational language, giving students more authority of what to do with their time. I’ve actually been telling the students, “Hey, all the readings and artifacts are speaking to the same Idea for that week. You choose your mileage. You choose… make it make sense for you. And I find that the students have responded to that. They seem to be more engaged. Of course, I don’t have hard data on that, but the course eval seem to suggest otherwise. The exit tickets that they speak to seem to suggest so too. But long story short, it’s doable, and I can only point to myself and to the evidence here that other people have said it seems to be malleable, that when you change one thing of your practice to be more autonomy supporting it tends to trickle.

John: I was impressed by the research that suggested that when people did attend professional development on it, that they tended to persist in the practice, which doesn’t always happen, because quite often people will try something. It may work well, but then it will gradually fade out and people revert to their past practice. So it sounds as if this approach is something that the instructors themselves tend to value in terms of being a more enjoyable teaching experience.

Jed: Thanks for bringing that up, John. I want to believe, I want to say, that if you were to walk into our classrooms, or the classrooms that I’ve had the privilege of teaching the past couple years, that they’re loud, that the students are looking at each other eye to eye, that they’re asking questions, raising their hand and asking for follow up over the course of a lecture. Now I can’t guarantee their reading necessarily, but they seem to be coming to class a little bit more engaged than not, and to me, that’s a win. But yeah, I think I can only speak to my own experience here, where, if it weren’t for this, I think I still would be engaging in a very controlling style. I’m so grateful that I just bumped into this particular framework, because when I was starting out, my first teaching assignment was online classes. It was COVID and I was racking my head. How do you reach students? And consistently, the empirical evidence said, you gotta spark their motivation. You gotta attend to motivation. It doesn’t matter if you have the best content. It doesn’t matter if you have the best exercises. They need to get their foot in the door and stay. They need to close the door after them. And motivation was it, especially the work of Ryan and Deci.

Rebecca: So what advice would you give someone who wants to take their first steps in this direction and implement autonomy-supportive teaching?

Jed: Start small, start really small here, and choose one principle at a time for a semester to work on. The practices won’t go away anywhere, because as a faculty member, you have to be everywhere and be everything, but the practices will always be there. So choose one. Choose one. Start small. And I’d encourage you to look at choice, choice, choice, choice at the assignment stage, choice in what I need to do, to show that I’ve done the work and to demonstrate learning. Choice in that way. Choice in submitting that assignment as well, choice and engaging in class. Does a person have to raise their hand? Does the person have to respond by themselves? Could they respond in a group? Could they defer for a later time, like, if they don’t respond this time around, could they be compelled to answer the next time around? That kind of stuff. Do they have to respond in this particular session? That kind of stuff is just giving the students more choice, and then as you do that, the levels of choice, they can get bigger. Like, the stakes could be bigger. Like, do we want to cover this topic right now? The choice could start to trickle and take on different levels of trust between you and the student. You’re asking them to take ownership of their learning. And that oftentimes means saying, ‘Hey, did this make sense? Did our entire last week make sense? Do we want to go back and review it?” It’s increasing the levels of choice for our students, and it starts with that. Just maybe we can give them more options here at this level.

John: Is it possible to go a little too far and give students too much choice? Is it important to maintain some type of structure, because if you just leave it completely up to the students, might things break down and you might lose some of the effect of your expertise, perhaps.

Jed: Oh yeah, what a great, valid question. [LAUGHTER] We’re speaking of this idea of laissez-faire teaching. I don’t think we need to draw too far deep into our memories of a terrible teaching moment where we felt that the instructor was checked out, and if you were to say, “Hey, I need this,” they’d just keep doing on the same thing. I think that’s a major distinction to make. Giving folks more choice is not the same as not paying attention, not responding just in time and going as is. That idea of laissez-faire teaching is just moving on and keeping on. There is an element of seeking more knowledge about the student and responding to this just in time. That’s the first major definition of autonomy-supportive instruction, being present, doing something about it. Now, in terms of professional expertise as the instructor, yeah, we’re there. We have to have guardrails, absolutely but I think the ask is this, are some of our guardrails arbitrary, like submitting things at a certain date? How much of that is crucial to the discipline, the subject? Do we have to use this particular mode, which speaks to UDL? Does our content depend on a midterm exam? Does the sanctity of our subject depend on a five-page essay. That’s what this is saying. Like, can we tether between the extreme of “it must be this way forever” versus “Yeah, sure, whatever. I don’t care.” I think that’s the ask here. With autonomy-supportive instruction is to thread the needle between both extremes and say, “I think we can give you a bit more options for accountability, for ownership, and just really to make this your own.” And how can we embed more of this? It’s asking the students to relate it back to their lives. If you’re a fly in a classroom that embeds this, it’s embedding it and making it more personally relevant for the students and professionally relevant, because you’re trying to support this thing called internalization, assigning significance and importance. But yeah, there is always going to be a place and an expectation for the professional to say, “Yep, here is the limits.” And we got to have some limits here. Absolutely. They ask us how much of those limits are arbitrary.

Rebecca: Structure is really important when there’s choice.

Jed: And as a special education teacher, you gotta have structure. Yeah.

John: It reminds me of something that Kevin Gannon has said in the past about the difference between logistical rigor and cognitive rigor, that we want classes to be challenging, but challenges in terms of the cognitive effort of learning the material, not in terms of arbitrary rules and procedures that do not add to the learning.

Jed: That’s the connection. Yeah. It’s asking yourselves, alright, is this 100% absolutely necessary?

Rebecca: How have students responded?

Jed: Yeah. So in class at the very moment I just came from a class that, and that’s this, their eyes were, I’m looking for all the tells of engagement when I’d ask a question, first time told they respond first time told. When I say “Hey, I want you to take the next few moments to review this artifact in the middle of class,” I see them whip open their books and start clicking and clacking their keys. So the tells seem to suggest that these practices work. One of the exit tickets, I’ll just share this with you. In the first week, they’re asked what’s working for you? What’s not working? And one student said this, “Wow, I have never had so many options before. I am really grateful to have options, and I cannot believe that this is the first class I’ve had where I’ve had these many options.” And it’s not one of those things where it’s like, yeah, sure, pat yourself on the back. But I think it’s one of those things where, alright, here’s a student for whom this seems to resonate for them, and it seems to be a fit for them. And a lot of students, over the course of several sections, seem to be saying the same thing. So straight from the students, straight from the source, it seems to resonate for them, this thing called autonomy-supportive instruction in terms of their achievement, because at the end of the day, this is what we’re about. We want the students to do well. We want them to flourish. I’ve found that no matter what the form, no matter what the approach, the students attend to those rubric criteria. They address them with diligence. They address them with care. And I found that, knock on wood, I haven’t had a serious situation yet in my course sections where you give students choice, they take it. They don’t abuse it. Yet. Keywords as well for student reactions, I had in my notes: shock, relief, and appreciation, and I get minimal-end-of semester grading issues so far. But I have to say, though, the stuff like the 24-hours revise and resubmit, that can get really, really unwieldy too, but rare.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

Jed: Sure, Bev’s ice cream, chocolate, vanilla, medium, I’m thinking, it’s a hot day [LAUGHTER] and it’s a beautiful day, so I’m thinking ice cream.

John: Well, thank you. It’s great talking to you again, and we’ll talk to you again in the future. I’m sure.

Jed: It’s a privilege. Thank you so much.

Rebecca: 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]

357. Inclusive Socratic Teaching

Socratic teaching is a primary pedagogical technique in American law school education. In this episode, Jamie Abrams joins us to discuss barriers this method can impose and strategies for a more inclusive approach to Socratic teaching.

Jamie is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Legal Rhetoric Program at the American University Washington College of Law.  She has published numerous books, chapters, and articles, including several on legal education pedagogy. Jamie is the recipient of teaching awards from Blackboard, the University of Louisville, and the American University Washington College of Law. She also co-founded the Brandeis Human Rights Advocacy Program at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law which works to advance the human rights of immigrants, refugees, and noncitizens.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Socratic teaching is a primary pedagogical technique in American law school education. In this episode, we discuss barriers this method can impose and strategies for a more inclusive approach to Socratic teaching.

[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 Jamie Abrams. Jamie is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Legal Rhetoric Program at the American University Washington College of Law. She has published numerous books, chapters, and articles, including several on legal education pedagogy. Jamie is the recipient of teaching awards from Blackboard, the University of Louisville, and the American University Washington College of Law. She also co-founded the Brandeis Human Rights Advocacy Program at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law which works to advance the human rights of immigrants, refugees, and noncitizens. Welcome, Jamie.

Jamie: Hello.

John: Our teas today are:… Jamie, are you drinking any tea?

Jamie: I am. I have a very simple green tea, but it’s in a special mug that one of my research assistants gave me that has a picture of the cover of a book I wrote and my research assistant worked on. So my tea is pretty basic, but my mug is pretty special.

John: And it’s on theme, because we will be talking about that book very shortly,

Rebecca: I have Scottish afternoon tea, despite the fact that we’re recording this in the morning. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I have Lady Grey tea today.

Rebecca: That’s a good choice, John. We invited you here today, Jamie, to talk about your most recent book, the one that’s on the mug, Inclusive Socratic Teaching: Why Law Schools Need It and How to Achieve It. Socratic teaching has long been a hallmark of legal education. Why has there been such a high level of curricular conformity in legal education?

Jamie: Yeah, it’s really kind of shocking, right? If we think for a second about what lawyers do. We hire lawyers to be innovators, problem solvers, creative thinkers, storytellers. So the idea that we educate in such a lockstep way is really kind of befuddling to me. You would think that schools, especially in a competitive market packed in fighting for these students, would find ways to differentiate. So I think personally, the US News and the larger than life role that the rankings processes have played over the years is one piece of the story. I also think it’s a lot of mimicry. So I became a law professor, and I started teaching how my law professors taught me, who were teaching how their law professors taught them. And also, I think there’s very little incentive to innovate. You have to sort of cross a certain threshold and be a quality and strong teacher, but at the end of the day, most of the incentives in academia generally, are skewed toward publication and other things, and there’s not a lot of incentive within our institutions. There’s no one to tell that you’ve innovated. There’s no one celebrating it or putting it on the website, but they’ll put your book on the website, and they’ll put your publications on the website. But I do think it’s ironic that the Socratic method was innovative at one point, that it was revolutionary to legal education, and now 100 years later, I’m not sure we can call it revolutionary anymore.

John: What is some of the harm done by this focus on Socratic teaching?

Jamie: Yeah.So first, let me just define Socratic teaching, just to make sure. So folks might define it different ways, but it’s typically a large lecture hall full of students, one professor situated at the front, and that Professor holds all of the power and engages in sort of serial Q and A with one student, than another, than another. So it might last the whole class with one student, some professors might do cold calls, where everyone in the room is sitting there scared, waiting to be on call, or others might take volunteers. And so this method of teaching is very distinct to legal education, and it has wielded the exact same criticisms, frankly, for 50 years, criticism that it marginalizes some voices and magnifies others. If you think about a classroom design, that’s literally true, like certain voices just carry dominantly on those microphones in our classrooms, others are harder to pick up, harder to hear. There are quantitative studies going all the way back to the 90s that male students, and white male students particularly, are much more comfortable engaging in this sort of intellectual sparring with the professor and other students might find that culturally dissonant to the way they would engage with the professor. It can be very abstract, sort of talking in the air about what the law is, which can cause students to sort of leave their identities at the door. We sort of pretend that the law is neutral, and while people in the room have been harmed by some of the legal rules that we’re teaching, and we don’t often acknowledge that, or we leave those students to raise the critiques directly. So those are some of the most concrete harms. But the other thing I would just briefly mention, those are the harms that I think are sourced to the Socratic method of teaching, this abstract perspectivelessness, sort of marginalizing hierarchy. But the thing that I’ve wrestled with in my work is: what are we protecting here? Are the rest of the students just thriving and loving this method of teaching? And that’s where I think it’s important to note that we have a real wellness crisis, in general, in legal education and the practice of law, with one in 10 students reporting self harm, one in six students with clinically diagnosed depression, one in four students with alcohol dependence. And so I sort of look at that data and like, “What are we protecting here? Why are we so afraid to innovate or try something new?”

Rebecca: Law school student bodies have also become more diverse. Has legal education evolved to support these more diverse student populations? It’s sounding like it’s not.

Jamie: It really is not, or the way that I describe it is we’re innovating around the curricular core. So it’s like we’ve bought a house and we’re doing beautiful renovations to closets and third floors and guest rooms, but we’re leaving the kitchen and the living room, where people spend the bulk of their time, untouched, and so we have beautifully more diverse student bodies, faculties, and our communities. But honestly, most of the reforms that have happened along with the diversification of who’s studying law have been more structural and less curricular. So we’ve popped up all of these support mechanisms, mentoring programs, pipeline programs, scholarships, affinity organizations, academic success programming, named chairs and all of these things are helpful. They provide structural support, but again, those are really incremental supports that risk giving the message to students that students are the problem, not the pedagogy. It’s saying, “Well, if any students are not thriving in this pedagogy, we’ll hire all these people to help support you through it,” instead of maybe reflecting that maybe the pedagogy isn’t working for everybody. So those kinds of support systems are helpful, but they’re sort of more harm reduction than transformation, and so our curriculums have not changed dramatically, other than seminars and ad hoc things like that.

John: Going back to the pedagogy a bit, one of the things that has been emphasized quite a bit in terms of inclusive teaching more broadly, is the importance of low-stakes formative assessments. But it sounds as if that has not been the norm in at least the core curriculum in law schools. Could you talk a little bit about how assessment takes place and what type of feedback students get in their core courses?

Jamie: Yeah, and one of the reasons I’m so excited to be on your podcast is legal education is so far behind other fields in pedagogical transformations. And so just about 10 years ago, we moved to outcomes-based assessment, frankly, pretty begrudgingly and reluctantly, but the accreditation bodies moved us in that direction, and most folks did it kind of superficially. We’ve added some learning outcomes to our course, and that was about it. So a typical law school course marches through 14 weeks of these sort of high anxiety, intellectual sparring with your professor, and then it historically culminated in a one time only three- or four-hour exam where you sit and that’s it, and you may not ever get that exam back. You’ll get your grade, you will move on, and from that professor, you’re unlikely to be able to get too much feedback, maybe a sample answer, or maybe a little bit of a summary of what your professor was looking for. But along the way, this outcomes-based education comes along, and frankly, most law faculty adapted very simply by just moving that summative exam that was so stressful and opaque and anxiety producing from the end and then plopped a midterm in October or March that does the exact same thing. It’s just as opaque, it’s just as stressful, it’s just worth less. But we’ve not really adapted in very thoughtful ways to do more no-stakes, low-stakes assessment, or to really help students see an arc, like a course of development of how the Socratic method fits into any of this. Is this a form of assessment, or is it just a method of teaching? I don’t think we’re clear for ourselves what the heck we’re doing with this method of teaching.

Rebecca: So as you brought in more diverse students, and the pedagogy hasn’t changed, and you have these supports here,[LAUGHTER] and that you’ve talked about some things kind of changing along the margins. Has the curriculum changed around the margins? Is that where some of the change has happened?

Jamie: So there’s a lot more dynamic programming. We have many more seminars and interesting named chairs and folks in our institutions who are institutional experts. But that being said, like a typical course in contracts or tort law or civil procedure still looks pretty much the same. The book I use, for example, is on it’s like 15th edition. It’s been around for 80 something years, and so how has it adapted? It shoves some more notes in to offer some more diverse perspectives, maybe eliminating some of the masculinized language or the racialized language in a practice problem or a hypothetical students are wrestling with. So I would say that, generally speaking, our teaching has become less problematic. But that’s not the same as becoming inclusive or excellent.

John: And in your book, you also talk a little bit of how the curriculum reflects the dominant culture, which doesn’t bring in a lot of voices, just by the nature of the curriculum with existing case law. What perhaps should be done to bring in more voices so that the curriculum better connects to the more diverse student body?

Jamie: Yeah. So I think reimagining a Socratic classroom around clients, around skills, and around communities could go a long way. So the one thing that Socratic classrooms offer that is beneficial is repetition, which is very helpful for students learning a new skill. And every class, every time they walk in, they’re going to start with one case, then a second case, then a third case, and they’re going to do that in all of their classes. So there actually is a lot of repetition happening. So what if instead we transformed that repetition into beginning with a client who called a lawyer. Why did they call a lawyer? What did they want? What had happened to that person? What did the law say when the lawyer first researched the law and did that answer the client’s problem, or did it not? And in most of our cases, it didn’t, and so they had to go to court. So there’s just so much more we could do to pull the exact same materials, the exact same law that we’re studying, and pull it down into communities. Like, how is this actually affecting people? And if you think about it, we’re packing classrooms. I have 88 people in my class that starts next week. There’s so many perspectives in that class. There’s going to be international students, students from rural America, from urban America, students from every geography in the country, like there’s so many great moments to just hear from that. But so this serial, I’m going to talk to student one, then student two, then student three, we’re missing all of the great opportunity to bring in. So there’s this famous movie, The Paper Chase. And in this movie, the professor is a legendary Socratic professor, and he says, “You came to me with a brain full of mush, and then I’m going to turn you into a lawyer.” And I think that that mentality, certainly less toxic today, but there’s still this idea that we need to eliminate, eradicate, this idea that our students come with a, quote, “brain full of mush,” and every year we have a room of 88 people from all over who’ve lived different experiences, who are going to read this exact same material and think about it differently, and our classrooms could be so much more engaging and different every semester, and more student centered if we start to embrace that instead of sticking with this serial case participation.

John: And I do have to say, as I was reading your book, I kept seeing John Houseman, both in the movie [LAUGHTER] and in the TV series. A brilliant actor.

Jamie: I think he won an Oscar for it,

John: I believe so, yeah.

Jamie: I have mad respect for anyone role playing a law professor who could win an Oscar. That’s impressive.

John: But I think that series did reflect some of the stress and anxiety that that method of teaching created for the students.

Jamie: Absolutely, there’s this famous scene. I can’t remember where it falls in the movie, but a group of these all white male students get a hotel room, and they lock themselves in, and they take the TV out, and they’re just spiraling into madness as they’re studying for the exam, and they’re talking about murder on the inside, such that the housekeeping staff ultimately gets suspicious of what’s going on in there. But it depicts everything of the toxicity. It certainly doesn’t look nothing like that anymore. But that the same idea of just this brain full of mush and then this frenzied push to an all in exam is certainly still there.

Rebecca: I think, whether you’re in a traditional kind of law faculty or in a different kind of department that still embraces traditional practices, no matter your discipline, introducing more inclusive practices can be daunting, can be hard. What do you see as some of the first steps to make some change? Is it something that you do as an individual? Is it something that you start to do and try to make a departmental change? How did the seeds of change happen, do you think?

Jamie: Yeah, one of the things that I think is a first problem to be addressed is we actually don’t have a community of teachers who teach in this way. And that’s actually kind of surprising. At least in legal education, there are robust communities of folks who teach legal writing, for example, that’s one of my areas of expertise. And we have conferences, we have newsletters, we have our own journals about pedagogy. We have idea banks, we have listservs where we share ideas. And that happens in clinical education. And so here, this is sort of like a rogue industry of Socratic teachers, sort of working as independent contractors, doing their own thing. You walk into a law clinic, whether it’s serving veterans in a private school, in a rural setting, or whether it’s doing housing cases in Manhattan, there’s a certain pedagogy and there’s a certain set of values that drive the work that these clinical classrooms are engaging in. And so I think one huge part of this is we need to build some community for those folks. There are 1000s of law professors, and more than that. My daughter is in AP gov and did a Socratic seminar as part of her coursework as well. And we’re exporting it around the world. A lot of law schools are trying to design themselves in an American tradition. And so I think one huge step is community building and figuring out how we can share ideas and have a sense of identity among Socratic teachers. So I think that’s a big part. Second, I think we also have a huge problem in academia generally, where we bifurcate staff and faculty roles, and so we have staff in our institutions who are working daily with students struggling through our classes, struggling through the bar, struggling through job placement, and then we have faculty just marching on doing their thing, and there’s very little information sharing about what kind of shared experiences, because it can depersonalize it. It’s not my classroom that’s a problem. But if we could hear our students in general are struggling with cold calling, with too much reading, with general anxiety, and we could start to be thinking much more as a community. And then finally, I think one of the big issues is this Socratic classroom props up the entire structure of time management for faculty, specifically. So I’m coming off my summer. I get back to teaching next week. And if I’m being honest, I probably spent 90% of my summer working on scholarship, and 10% working on teaching. And even the teaching, I wouldn’t really say, is working on teaching, it’s working on just rebooting the administrative components of it, updating my syllabus, getting my course learning management site up. It’s not teaching. I’m not transforming, I’m not redesigning, I’m not innovating, I’m marching forward. And I use my summers to do scholarship. And so I think for folks who are interested in innovating, we have to make some space for it so that others can follow.

John: There’s been a variety of critical approaches critiquing legal education. Have they had much of an impact?

Jamie: We have 50 years of scholars across a robust group of adjacent fields of scholarship, from feminist legal theory to critical race theory to LatCrit to queer theory. All of these critical perspectives have different methodologies, different agendas, and the one thing they all align on is naming the critiques of the Socratic method. And so I think, if I’m being reflective, these scholarly communities have had huge effects in building out that seminar programming, making more diverse hiring, and in the law itself, like how we think about what the law should be and scholarship, but at the end of the day, inside of the curriculum, I think the change has been a little bit more incremental, a little bit more add on. And so that’s kind of stressful for students too, to just shove in some extra readings here and there, but it’s not integrated in the book, and it sort of feels tangential or ad hoc. So I don’t think we’ve done a lot. Again, we’ve kind of done it around the core, and there’s great things happening. But I personally think that every person about to enter the legal profession should be thinking about it in more inclusive ways, of how the law affects communities. And just bluntly, every law is an expression of power, and somebody is going to benefit from that law, and someone is going to be harmed by it. And so it should be a part of training lawyers, not just seminar enrollment with your electives.

Rebecca: It’s really powerful just to just even think about that. I’m thinking about what you were saying about needing to shift from a 90/10 to a different kind of percentage, and how you start to make that shift if you also need to start forming community when a community doesn’t actually currently exist, because some of that time would need to be allocated to the community too. So it’s not as clean as a 90/10.

Jamie: That’s exactly right. And so, for example, I’m really excited since this book came out, I’ve done a couple of talks with faculty. Teaching is so vulnerable. Reading course evaluations, you have to be in the right mental space to open those. It’s hard, it’s searing, it’s vulnerable, just like our students’ experience when they open our feedback on their essays and their exams. And so I think here, if it feels like an attack and someone saying your teaching is outdated or your teaching is too traditional, it shuts people down. But if instead, we could bring in a speaker and look at a script of a typical Socratic dialog: what were the facts of the case, what was the holding of the case, what was the issue in the case, and critique it. That’s pretty darn abstract. It actually is abstract. How could we reframe this? And then the legal writing faculty in the room and the clinical faculty might say, “Why don’t you ask who hired a lawyer and why? Because those are the people who walk into our clinic.” And then the legal writing, people might say, “Why don’t you ask what legal sources that lawyer found when they researched on behalf of their client?” And so I think there are just cool ways within our faculty where we can all be learning from each other, but it does, I think, have to be a bit community based, otherwise it just feels too personal. And so one of the things I talk about in the book is this kind of paradoxical opportunity that COVID created, because the very idea that 180 something law schools and all of these faculties, in a flip of a switch, changed how they taught, and it wasn’t right, it was frenzied and it was flawed, but it was necessary, and we did it. And so, similarly, I think here, if it feels less personal, and it feels like we have to do this for our students, because one in 10 of our students is engaging in self harm, and one in four has alcohol dependence, like we can make some changes. I think we feel like we’re doing something together, instead of feeling like we’re attacked by someone critiquing our teaching.

John: You advocate inclusive Socratic teaching, so you’re not suggesting that Socratic teaching be eliminated. What aspects of Socratic teaching would be kept? What are the benefits of it that you’d like to see persisting?

Jamie: Yeah, and first I should say advocating might be a strong word for keeping Socratic method. I think I just approach it from sheer pragmatism… that change, you can’t bludgeon change. Change is hard. Faculties are not the most change oriented groups of people. The critiques are fair, and I think people actually agree with those critiques, but I do not think that the critical mass is there ready to upend the Socratic classroom and reimagine legal education. And so I sort of start from that premise and then say, “Okay, well, what could we do within this?” And so I kind of pitch my thinking on this as we should keep blowing the roof off of legal education, reimagining how we think about teaching. But while we’re doing that, which takes some time, we have to raise the floor and just raise our standards. So the things that I suggest are that we come up with a set of shared pedagogies that shape a Socratic classroom, and I propose that those frame Socratic teaching around techniques that are student centered, skill centered, client centered and community centered. And so my thinking with that is changing books is hard, changing testing techniques is hard, changing your teaching notes is hard, but if we could just reframe our existing dialogs using our existing materials, I think we could go a long way to diffusing that power role that the professor plays at the front. And frankly, it’s kind of liberating to hand a lot of power to the students. It takes pressure off the professor. It’s not this intellectual sparring, it’s a community of soon to be lawyers working together to talk about cases and what happened. And so I think it’s just a much more achievable method of reform. But in bulk, given how much of the time our students spend in these courses, I think the results could be transformative.

Rebecca: It seems like one of the key things that you’re promoting is the idea of the connectedness, that it’s not abstract, and that it’s connected to each individual, and that there’s a way for them to see how it would impact their lives, or the lives of their individual communities, or the communities that they’re a part of.

Jamie: Yeah. And I think the wealth of scholars who are writing about wellness in the profession are really great on this topic, which is, if we were to try to source where is this depression coming from… what’s happening? Law students enter legal education with similar levels of happiness and healthiness to their similarly situated peers, and then something’s happening in that first year. And I think that’s exactly what it is. It is the loss of community. Students are afraid to come into office hours, that someone else might hear their questions. And it varies at different schools how competitive and how individualistic the pursuit is, but when I think about my time practicing law, it was not individualistic at all. It’s sitting in a conference room hashing out ideas, throwing out ideas, brainstorming what to do, coming up with a plan B and a Plan C and a Plan D, and teams of lawyers thinking things through and the study of law is a lot of holeing yourself up in the library and just grinding it out, and maybe you might look to the people to your right and left as your competition. Certainly we need to do a lot more to help see that these are your future collaborators and colleagues, and you’re joining a profession that is a community, and you’ll rely on them much more in your practice than law school gives the impression of.

John: So shifting to more teamwork and collaborative work would be part of this revision. What other changes would you like to see in terms of how classrooms are functioning in a more inclusive approach?

Jamie: I would say, first, we need to be transparent with our students. If we’re using the Socratic method, why? What is happening, and it’s very opaque. So for example, if I were to propose one change to the most cynical or incrementalist of teachers who’s sort of skeptically considering this. Very simply, just tell your students what you’re doing with the Socratic method. Why are you using it? How does it prepare you for the exam? How does it prepare you for lawyering or the bar exam? What is it doing? And that can just be helpful. That’s a first step. Second. I think it’s helpful to start to think about pulling out of our Socratic methods. More clients, community, and skills. And then third, I think we have to tether this to a repackaging of our exam strategies as well. So what we’re doing in the classroom should be a form of no-stakes, low-stakes readiness for what you’re going to ask students to do on the exam. And so similarly, if we can start to ground our exams in more purposeful. So many of our exams are very abstract. You’ll give students a bunch of things that happen. I teach tort law with like personal injuries. So there’s a car accident, and then someone on those college campus scooters leaves it, and someone trips on it, and all sorts of sort of parade of horribles happening. And then we say: analyze. But who’s our client? Who’s paying us? What’s our mission? What was our community? Where did this happen? We could just do more to align what we’re doing in the classroom with these exams. And I think a lot of that aligns with where legal education is heading anyway, which is toward more professional identity formation, more development of cultural competencies. And so I think this, it can fulfill a lot of pedagogical objectives.

Rebecca: I hinted towards this a little bit earlier, about there’s individual things you can do to start to form community around you, or to connect with people who might be interested [LAUGHTER] in pursuing some of these things as well. Those individuals may not be your colleagues within your department. They may be other folks that you’ve met at conferences. How do you start nudging the people around you, maybe, who need the nudging? [LAUGHTER]

Jamie: Yeah, absolutely, I think it’s important to note that Socratic teaching in its traditional form is really hard on teachers too. We’ve talked about how it’s hard on students, but I look back on my early years of teaching, and it is a constant debilitating fear that your students are going to catch you in something you don’t know, or a mistake you made, and that’s just an unrealistic set of expectations. I practiced law. I was a talented lawyer. I’m a talented professor, but I still know only a fraction of the material that I’m teaching. There’s still room to learn. There’s still cases I never had and areas I never practiced in. And so it’s a very stress inducing experience for the professor, too, and particularly the new professor. And so over time, it becomes very sustainable, but at the beginning, it’s actually debilitatingly terrifying,[LAUGHTER] and especially it’s because of that intellectual sparring vibe. You can picture the student who’s like, mission in life is to outspar their professor, and so, that’s just a terrible approach to learning in general. And so I think a little bit of this, more experience sharing of how teaching can be more engaging, right? I teach the same courses every single year, but if we’re teaching in more student-centered, community-centered ways, our students are changing dramatically, how they think about the world, how they think about learning, our communities are changing dramatically, and our communities are, frankly, more polarized and divisive than ever. And so what are we going to do about that? So for tort law, for example, we’re going to go to a jury. Which kind of jury in COVID Are you going to get? The jury that COVID is not serious, or the jury where COVID has the whole community on lockdown? It’s a totally different set of values and norms driving a community. And so I think that it can just be such a more engaging way to teach if we open up the idea that our students are going to engage with the material in different ways every year, and it also takes the professor out of it, like I try to teach in inclusive Socratic techniques, and one of the things that I think is the biggest benefit of what I try to do is I don’t have a line out my door at exam time of panicked students. I do review sessions, and people come to office hours throughout, but if you’re more transparent with your students about what you expect of them and if they know how you’re going to test them at the end, and if every class is a chance to practice that over and over, it also takes a little bit of this tension out of the grades that I give and the conversations that you have with students around exam time, they can start to support themselves. You can start to transfer. They can study in groups and take practice problems together. And so in some respects, I think it’s less fatiguing and it feels less high stakes, because I can’t have all the answers. I have my lived experience. But when someone else engages on a topic in the class, the other folks in the class might have a dramatically better answer than I ever could have thought of. So I think just being a little bit more vulnerable and raw in like talking to each other about what Socratic teaching is actually like, especially in these first years, and I should mention especially for women professors and professors of color, because we have this image and this bias in our head of what a law professor looks like. And so if you stand there with a quieter voice, a smaller frame, if your voice doesn’t carry in the same way across the classroom, if you’re a person of color, there’s great series of talking about presumptions of competence, and how students on bulk don’t give a presumption of competence to their professors of color. And then you imagine that intellectual sparring and what that’s like when you have someone who looks like what you thought your law professor would look like, and someone who doesn’t. It’s a dramatically different experience. And so that was a very long answer, but building community and more honesty about what teaching in this tradition feels like.

Rebecca: So I feel like you might have some folks who might just say, “but Jamie, I’ve got my habits and I’m tired [LAUGHTER]…

Jamie: Yes, yes. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: …and I don’t wanna,” but I feel like those same folks might buy in if you say it’s really important for the new people, or for the diversification of the field, to make a little bit of room for these new folks and to establish some of these other kinds of patterns so they don’t get the pushback, and that they don’t have some of this stress. A lot of times, I think some of our seasoned faculty actually are really willing to budge a little bit so that some of the people that they really want to see succeed can, if they understand why those people can’t succeed. Sometimes you have to be really explicit about why they can’t succeed though, they just don’t get it.

Jamie: Yeah, absolutely. And one of the things that I think is important too, is, despite everything we’ve talked about in our time together, about the critiques and the harms, course evals are great for these professors, right? Like these are beloved professors. They’re revered, people aspire to be in their classrooms. There is tremendous peer pressure in teaching to conform. So one of the things I talk about in the book is, at a minimum, we just need to stop putting Socratic teaching on a pedestal and making it immune from accountability, even if you don’t want to change. Just stop pretending that your classroom is the default, and just make space that there could be other classrooms. And because what’s happening is anyone who wants to try to innovate or approach it in a different way is going to be evaluated by folks teaching in that traditional perspective. So there’s some room for academic deans to give some structure to what are we doing when we do peer evaluations, it’s not mimicry and conformity, like we should have some objective criteria that could be fulfilled in any number of teaching techniques, but there’s a lot of just this conformity. And so I think making some space to liberate peer evaluations, to rethink the questions we ask on our course evaluations, like the dominant questions on a law school course: “Was your professor knowledgeable? Was your professor available? Did your professor handle difficult topics well?” It’s all Professor centered, instead of, “Did you feel welcome in the classroom? Did you have the tools you needed to succeed?” Even our questions could be more student centered to start to measure things from the student perspective instead of let’s just assess whether you thought your professor was smart enough, which is an incredibly narrow and subjective and infused with bias way to approach it.

Rebecca: You mean like a question, like, “Did you receive feedback throughout the semester?”

Jamie: [LAUGHTER] That’s a great question. That would be a great question. One quick anecdote I would love to mention. As I was working on this book, I had the chance to present… every year, there is a new law professors conference that takes place in Washington, DC, run by the American Association of Law Schools. And so, I don’t know, maybe 150, 200 people come. These are the new hires. They’re entering. They’re going into academia all over the country. First of all, as a slight aside, everyone calls it the baby law profs, which already tells you that we are not embracing the idea that new people come in with new ideas. But anyway, putting that aside, I got the chance to do a session on the Socratic method there, and I would describe it as pretty raw, because in that room are people who want to change, like they’re at that moment, and they’re actually at a conference that’s doing some of the assimilation, and saying, “Let me teach you how to teach in the Socratic method,” like, “let me teach you how to handle exam writing.” And so that kind of tells you that there’s just this assimilation process, and on the topic of the Socratic method, it was quite raw, because many of those faculty, they’ve been in practice, and they see the flaws of it, they see the limitations of it, and they’re excited to innovate. And then slowly, we kind of dull that instinct and start to channel toward conformity in a way that I think is really problematic. That’s a great place where we could start. And let’s open it up, let’s hear from innovators. Who’s not teaching in a Socratic method? Let’s get them in front of these students and these new law professors, and let’s get a more diverse panel of what other techniques folks are using, what’s working, what’s not.

John: Following up with that issue of diversity, in your book, and you alluded to this just a few minutes ago, there seem to be some pretty substantial gender inequities in terms of legal instruction. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Jamie: Yeah, absolutely. And I honestly would love to talk about it a little bit more from the perspective of personal narrative, because I think that will tell the story quite representatively. So I’ve been in teaching for 17 years. I have two children, and I’ve had zero maternity leaves. One I was lucky enough to have in June, and so it worked out. The second was born in September… didn’t work out… and I kept teaching through that semester. I was a term faculty member, as many women faculty are, so I was not full time, not eligible for FMLA, and I hadn’t been there for a year. And I remember talking to my academic dean. I remember coming home and being like, “he’s gonna let me teach.” And I was so grateful that I was gonna be allowed to come in after giving birth and keep teaching. And I look back on that, and I’m like, “Oh my gosh, there are so many layers of problems with that….” that I actually sincerely felt that, and that I was so grateful to just have a job through that. And so anyways, so I was in legal writing, which is dominated by women, as is clinical faculty, and really limited in its opportunities for tenure-track positions. And so I ultimately went on the tenure track, and you have to be geographically mobile often to do that. And so that landed me in the middle of Kentucky, in Louisville, Kentucky, from Manhattan, and my spouse was a financial services guy working in Manhattan, and somehow did not seem as excited about Louisville, Kentucky’s financial services market as I was, and so we ended up living there 10 years, and seven of them he commuted. Seven years of solo parenting. And like when you start to add that up, schools get out at three o’clock. You get the kids on the bus, you get to school. How many conferences is that? How many more papers could you have published? How many more networking dinners and Bar Association events or award if I were able to be a full time… I was a full-time professor, but solo parenting, just to have a job, not to rise in the job or thrive in the job, but just to call myself a professor. Quite candidly, it nearly destroyed our family. Seven years of commuting is financially taxing, it’s emotionally taxing, it’s very hard on relationships, and that experience is so typical. I could name dozens and dozens. We are not great at spousal hiring. We’re not great at childcare. We’ve got lots of issues and just lots of stunted opportunities. And then the last thing I’ll say is all those things we talked about, the mentoring, the support programs, the affinity groups, those are often led by women and professors of color. And so there’s a piece of legal scholarship that I really like that says the women professors do the housekeeping at home and the housekeeping institutionally. And so women faculty and faculty of color doing disproportionate amounts of service, particularly the kind of service that isn’t really counted very well. Certain kinds of service are quite well distinguished and coveted, but mentoring students can kind of fall off the grid, and being the person that people just come to for support is not really tracked, but that’s time lost. So those are some of my personal experiences with it. I think the most raw example of it is I will never forget the day I found out I was awarded tenure. We had multiple days of the meetings, and so I didn’t know which day would be the day my package would be considered, but the day we found out my spouse was out of town, and there’s a tradition of a champagne toast at the end for folks who were just awarded tenure. And I couldn’t be there for the champagne toast because I had to go home, and then I went home to solo parenting, and I just remember I was very upset about it, and I just remember feeling like that’s the stuff, that community and that I was there and I was thriving, but I was not able to engage in the ways that we would want our faculty to under those circumstances. That was a raw, dark note to end on.

Rebecca: Those are the realities, I think, of a lot of complexities of higher ed that we’re still trying to untangle.

Jamie: And I think the thing that excited me so much about you inviting me to join the podcast is we don’t talk very much across schools. We don’t talk across fields. And legal education is pretty darn far behind. We have a lot to learn from peers, if we’re open to it. And so I think that these struggles are not unique to legal education, and other fields and areas are much more ahead of us. And so if we could just open our minds to more learning,= 360 from those around us.

John: And your book should help contribute to that, at least in the legal profession.

Jamie: I hope so. My favorite thing to do with the book is do faculty presentations that are conversations where, similarly, where I begin with the presentation, and then I’m out of it, right? Just like I’m describing we should be doing in our classrooms, where, what’s happening at your school, what could you be doing? And it’s a really rewarding feeling to see faculty talking among themselves about pedagogy and not being talked at.

Rebecca: …sounds like a great place to get to our last question, which is: we always end by asking, what’s next?

Jamie: Well, I think if I were talking to colleagues listening who are teaching in the Socratic tradition, I would say, start with something. We often set such high goals for ourselves that it feels like too much. Just pick a couple of things, the transparency, try a different method of assessment, or talk to your colleagues about what methods of assessment might be more helpful to give feedback to students. My first message would be to start with just a couple of things and just see how it feels. We don’t need to rewrite our books or rewrite our syllabi, but I also think there’s a lot of institutional work that needs to be done. I think this grassroots and this coalition of the willing is one strategy. But also, I would love to see more leadership at the top of academic deans and institutional structures, just doing a little bit more. Like, what if we promoted in our marketing some of our great teachers? What if we could do some spotlighting on students talking about what they love about their great teachers. I think there’s a little more we could be doing to create a culture that values innovation in teaching. Lots of our teaching awards are kind of popularity contests. What if we had awards for innovation, where we start to incentivize in that direction? And so I think institutionally, there’s a lot of work we could do to start to set the tone at the top that this is something that actually matters, and we can actually differentiate in the kind of pedagogy we’re delivering.

Rebecca: Well, I hope your book sparks some great change in the spaces that you want the change to happen.

Jamie: Thank you so much. Conversation about teaching, I think, is the answer to the beginning of all of this. So I’m so grateful to be on this podcast and to see the work you all are doing in bringing folks together from various fields and traditions, and it’s really inspiring.

John: Well, thank you. I really enjoyed reading your book. It’s an area that we had not really talked about before, and it sounds like it’s an area where there could be some very productive changes made.

[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]

351. Extending Kindness

Beginning faculty often receive warnings that lead to antagonistic relationships with their students. In this episode, Cate Denial joins us to discuss how a pedagogy of kindness can build productive learning environments for all students.

Cate is the Bright Distinguished Professor of American History and Director of the Bright Institute at Knox College. She is the winner of the American Historical Association’s 2018 Eugene Asher Distinguished Teaching Award and sits on the board of Commonplace: A Journal of Early American Life. She is also the author of A Pedagogy of Kindness, one of the first publications in the new Oklahoma University Press series on teaching and learning, edited by Jim Lang and Michelle Miller.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Beginning faculty often receive warnings that lead to antagonistic relationships with their students. In this episode, we examine how a pedagogy of kindness can build productive learning environments for all students.

[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: , 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 Cate Denial. Cate is the Bright Distinguished Professor of American History and Director of the Bright Institute at Knox College. She is the winner of the American Historical Association’s 2018 Eugene Asher Distinguished Teaching Award and sits on the board of Commonplace: A Journal of Early American Life. She is also the author of A Pedagogy of Kindness, one of the first publications in the new Oklahoma University Press series on teaching and learning, edited by Jim Lang and Michelle Miller. Welcome back, Cate.

Cate: Thank you.

John: Our teas today are:… Cate, are you drinking tea?

Cate: I am. I am drinking Harney and Sons Decaf Earl Grey.

John: …very nice.

Rebecca: It’s a great choice. I have a green tea today.

John: A what tea?

Rebecca: I don’t know it’s just green tea. [LAUGHTER] Sorry.

John: And I have a peppermint spearmint blend today.

Rebecca: Sounds nice and calming. So we’ve invited you here, Cate, to talk about the Pedagogy of Kindness. I think we last talked to you in October of 2021, when the book project was just getting started. And our discussion focused on a “Pedagogy of Kindness,” an essay on the topic that you posted in I think, August of 2019. This essay was such a great resource that helped so many people and I know, our community here was really interested in the subject. Can you talk a little bit about how this essay evolved into a book?

Cate: So, as I wrote the essay, there was so much I wanted to say, and I had to sort of just express it in the most concise form that I could. After I was done, I was sort of pondering the other things that I wish I’d had the space to be able to include. And then Josh Eyler, who is now at the University of Mississippi, messaged me and said, “Hey, I think this needs to be a book.” And I was like “Me too.” [LAUGHTER] So I started thinking of what I would do to make it a longer treatment. And I wrote up a proposal, sent that off, and started writing, pretty much straight away.

John: In this book, you argue for a teaching approach based on kindness. You note that many people, though, confuse “kindness” with “being nice.” How do you define “kindness?” And how is it different from “being nice.”

Cate: So, being nice is a lot of what we do in academia, nice lies, nice will do anything to just get along, it will avoid conflict, and it will just try and paper over cracks in our institutions, whereas kindness is fundamentally honest. So it means you’re going to have some really tough conversations with your colleagues and with your students. You’re not going to mislead them about how they’re doing in your class. And kindness is really about accountability, it’s about positionality, and it’s about responsibility. And those are all things that I think niceness just elides.

Rebecca: I know that I found myself saying many times after reading your essay: “Telling the truth here or letting a student know what their real situation is, would be the kind of thing to do. [LAUGHTER]

Cate: Exactly,exactly. And I often have people, as I go around the country and talk to other faculty, ask me: “Exactly how do you have these conversations, when the student comes to you and says, ‘this terrible thing has happened, and please just excuse this paper,’ or ‘don’t include this in my grade’…and you have to, especially if you are in a professional school, for example, or a medical school or something like that.” And that’s when that distinction between niceness and kindness really comes into play. Because niceness is just about getting along. And kindness is like, “Well, let’s have a real conversation about what’s going on here. Why these expectations are, what they are, whether it’s possible for us to make some kind of adjustment here, or whether this is a moment where we really have to talk about what your future is in this course, or in this program,” things like that.

John: In the introduction to the book, you note that this is not quite how you started teaching, that you started teaching, like many of us, with a somewhat different focus in terms of interactions with students. Could you tell us a little bit about your perspective when you first entered teaching?

Cate: So when I first entered teaching, I was brand new to teaching. I had got my degree in England one month before I stepped into a classroom in the United States. I did not know the United States educational system well at all. I felt like a complete fraud, and the limited training I had had at my graduate program really encouraged me to think of my students as antagonists, to assume they were going to cheat, they were going to try and get one over on me, that they wouldn’t do the reading, that they were going to try and negotiate for a grade that was not what they deserved to get, things like that. And walking into a classroom like that prepares you for battle [LAUGHTER] at every single moment, which is a terrible way to walk into a new relationship of any kind. It’s especially demoralizing and damaging, I think, when you are walking into a classroom, so I had to unlearn the business of thinking that my students were up to no good. I had to unlearn the business of thinking that my students were fundamentally not interested in their own education.

Rebecca: You mentioned your four day visit to a digital pedagogy lab, and how that impacted your teaching. Can you elaborate a little bit on that and share that story?

Cate: Yes. So I went to the Digital Pedagogy Lab Institute in 2017, which was in Fredericksburg, Virginia. It was the most incredible experience. I went because I had the feeling that I was lagging behind in bringing digital tools into my classroom. And I thought this would be where I would learn those things. And I certainly had that opportunity. But the first thing that I was asked to do in the intro track, was to tear apart everything about my teaching, in a really good way. I was in a track that was led by Chris Friend and Sean Michael Morris. And they asked us to reflect upon everything about our pedagogy. Why were we doing things in the way that we were doing them? What was the rationale that we had for the choices we were making, and the way we addressed our students and the kinds of things that we have happen in our classrooms. Everything about that institute was predicated on kindness. And it’s not that someone actually said at some point, “Why not be kind?” But that was the subtext from everything from… it was the first Institute I think I ever went to where there were pronoun pins that people could take when they registered. There was really generous swag, there was this wonderful ethos of sharing, everybody rolled up their sleeves. and really worked hard at turning everybody’s teaching materials into something even better than what they arrived with. There was really no hierarchy. It was just a wonderful community experience of trying to get better at what we do.

Rebecca: Sounds like such a great experience, and an opportunity to really critically reflect on your teaching, which we don’t always take the time to do.

Cate: I didn’t even know I needed to do it. [LAUGHTER] So by the time I went in 2017, I was more than 20 years into my teaching career. And I thought I was pretty great at teaching at that point. But what the digital pedagogy lab made me realize was that no matter what my goal was, as a teacher, all of the documents in my course, my syllabi, my assignment sheets, the way I handled introductions, all kinds of little things, really told a different story. And they told that story of antagonism that I had been socialized into as an early instructor. And I think that is something we are socialized into globally in higher ed.

John: One of the things you talk about is finding out a little bit more about your students. Because when many of us start teaching, we tend to assume that our students are similar to us, they have similar backgrounds, they’ve been prepared in ways that were similar to ours, maybe they weren’t quite as good as students as we were. But many people start off by assuming that students will be just like them. And yet you note in your introductory chapter that as many as 71% of undergraduates in the United States are non-traditional, under a teaching approach that focuses on kindness, how might faculty begin to address the diverse identities and needs of our students?

Cate: So, I think the first thing that we need to do is take stock of who our students are. And so we need to think about the demographics on our campus, that information is usually pretty easily available. As I travel around the country and visit different campuses, I always pause and look up on their websites, what is their diversity rate? And how many low-income students are there? How many people get Pell Grants? How many people are first-gen? How many people are returning after taking some time off? Or maybe have a GED? There’s all kinds of ways in which our students are not that sort of stereotypical 18 to 22 year old, straight white student who is perhaps in a sorority or fraternity or does athletics or anything that sort of gets caught up in the stereotype of who students might be. I’m really interested in what happens behind that. Even if a student walking into my classroom is, for example, a straight white student who is 18 to 22 years old, or maybe is an athlete, maybe is in a sorority. That doesn’t mean that those things tell me who they really are. They don’t tell me what is going on in their home life. Do they have kinship obligations and responsibilities? What is happening with the way that they’re funding their education, all kinds of different things. So I think pausing at the beginning of the term and really getting to know who our students are, is vital if we’re going to meet them where they’re at in our classrooms. So there’s lots of ways of doing that. There are ways of sending out surveys to our students, either before the semester begins or right as it begins. There are ways to have conversations in class to make those introductions a little bit more substantial than just, “Hi, my name is….. And my major is….. , and I’m taking this class, because….. So trying to gather that information, and also reflecting on how my identities are showing up as I walk into a classroom. I think those are really important parts of what we do.

Rebecca: What are some of the ways that adopting a pedagogy of kindness changes the ways that instructors and students interact?

Cate: I think it is all about undermining that presumption of antagonism. If we do not assume that our students are out to get us, But rather, that our students, in the vast majority of cases, are actually really invested in being there, and are perhaps a little bit scared of us, that they are a little bit uncertain, a little bit unsure, maybe they are first years, or this is their first class in a certain discipline, or they’ve been out of school for a while. There’s all kinds of ways that they might be very, very nervous coming into our classrooms. And so I think, taking the time to think about that, and address that, and make space for that, so that our students are not some sort of terrible, antagonistic, cruel set of people who really don’t want us to succeed or for themselves to succeed. That’s just not based in reality.

John: And I would think it would be a much more enjoyable environment, both for students and for the instructor, when there’s that trust between students and faculty.

Cate: Yeah, I actually have a blog post that I wrote, I think back in 2016, called the first-day jitters, that was about how nervous I would get before I would meet my students for the first time every semester. And once I changed my outlook and stopped expecting antagonism, I stopped getting nervous. I walked into the classroom and was excited about what was going to be co-created in that space. And it made an enormous difference to me and to my students. Certainly, I saw it in the ways that they interacted with one another and with me in our classroom spaces, but it changed everything for me about showing up as a teacher.

Rebecca: One of the things that you’re pointing to or hinting at is the idea that the pedagogy of kindness also applies to being kind to yourself. Can you talk a little bit about ways that instructors can be more kind to themselves?

Cate: Yeah, I think the number one way in which we can all be really kind to ourselves is to have impeccable boundaries. [LAUGHTER] I think it’s really important that we not prostrate ourselves, not give beyond what we are capable of giving, and have a really good understanding of what our capabilities are. So for example, if I am someone who is stringing together three jobs to make a livable income, if I have a family, if I have caregiving responsibilities, if I have a really long commute, all of those things are in the mix. And I cannot then be someone who 24/7 is simply available to my students. I don’t think that’s healthy, even if you don’t have any of those other responsibilities or considerations. I think that we all need time to have downtime, to have rest, to have play to, have pleasure. But I think that we need to be able to say, “I am available by email between these hours, you can expect an answer from me within a certain period of time.” Communicate those things incredibly clearly to our students. And that means that we’re also modeling for them that it is okay to take time for yourself and to have good boundaries.

John: In the second chapter of your book, you focus on the syllabus, which is often one of the first forms of communication between the instructor and students. Quite often the syllabi look more like legal documents than they do a welcoming introduction to the course. What are some of your suggestions on how to demonstrate kindness in your syllabus?

Cate: So an exercise that I was asked to do at the Digital Pedagogy Lab was to read my syllabus with a critical eye and ask myself who I was addressing when I wrote it. And what I found was that I was addressing someone who I assumed was going to screw up somehow. I assumed that they were going to disappoint me they were going to let me down, that they were going to try and get away with something… that old antagonism rearing its head. So then I had to stop and go, “That’s not who I think my students are, so why is that reflected in the language I’m using in my syllabus?” So then I stopped and I rewrote. And I kept in mind a student who is very real, I pick students to have actual students in my mind when I’m writing my syllabi, or when I’m revising them. And in addressing those students, I was able to make my language welcoming and warm. It doesn’t mean that it’s soft, it doesn’t mean that I don’t have boundaries and that I don’t have expectations. It simply means that I’m talking to them as I would if we were in person. That’s one thing that I learned to do. Another is that I learned that for many students, syllabi are impenetrable walls of text. And I’m sure all of us, in our time, if we haven’t written that syllabus, have seen that syllabus, maybe when we too were students. Those are really hard for students who have things like ADHD, for example, to be able to parse, to find the important information. They don’t look welcoming. They look like legal documents. And so I’ve changed my syllabi, for example, to have really colorful welcoming headers. I make a point of always saying “welcome to the class,” as the first thing that you see on the syllabus. I make a point of emphasizing relationship early and saying, “This is how you can get hold of me. Here are what my student hours are and what student hours mean.” And only then do I get into the stuff like, here’s what we’re going to read and here’s the assignments we’re going to do. It’s all about establishing warmth and a relationship from the get go.

Rebecca: How do you balance that approach with some institutional policy or other things that you maybe have to include in a syllabus that don’t have that same tone and tenor?

Cate: Yeah, that’s a really big consideration for a lot of people. There’s a lot of boilerplate language that has to go into many syllabi. So there, I borrow from Remi Kalir, who has students annotate the syllabus, and I’ve been doing this for several years. Now, my students get the syllabus at the end of the first class session, and they take it away for homework and they annotate it. I give them a really simple definition of what annotation is. And then in our second class period, we come back and they get to tell us what their questions were, what their comments were, what seemed unusual to them, what really stuck out and we have a conversation about all of that. And if you have a bigger class than I do, this is the sort of thing that you can have small groups do or you can have parents do. And then you can have people report out some of the things that they thought were most pressing. What that does is it returns to students some agency, and they can comment on the language shift, the tonal shift between the things you wrote and the things that you have to include, and you can have open conversations about “So why do you think we have to include this stuff? And what are ways that we could say this differently?” or “What is the way that you understand this best,?” Having that conversation is really important in allowing students to talk back to that document. And to make it clear that it’s a human creation, that it’s not just spit out by a machine somewhere, that there are people behind it, and that we are collectively always polishing and revising our syllabi in light of these relationships that we have on our campuses.

Rebecca: In smaller classes, I’ve done the annotation in a single document. And it’s been really interesting to have students comment on each other’s comments in a digital format, too. And it really brings some interesting things to light.

Cate: That’s a great way of doing it. I tend to have my students do it individually, just because they don’t know each other very well yet. And I found that my students tend to respond better to individual documents, and then a group discussion, but it works differently with every single instructor and every single set of students. So there are multiple ways that people could do this kind of annotation.

John: You did mention that this syllabus is not something spit out by a computer, but last week, we had a workshop where one of the things I suggested was that faculty may want to submit their syllabus to one of the AI tools out there and have it checked for inclusive language or to rewrite it in a more inclusive manner. And I think a lot of people found that, in that case, the computer did a better job than they did [LAUGHTER] in terms of creating that inclusive syllabus. But, at the other extreme, one of the things I’ve often done and I think you mentioned this in your book is in smaller classes, co-create the syllabus with students at the very start of the semester.

Cate: Yeah, I teach a course on history pedagogy. And there I give my students blank sheets of paper and say “Here’s your syllabus,” [LAUGHTER] and then they get to start brainstorming the things that they should put in syllabuses. They’re experts at syllabi, they read them all the time, they see many more than most of us do. And so they brainstorm what they think it should include. And then I put them in small groups. And together, they start to talk about, “Oh, that was a great idea you came up with, I didn’t think of that. Let’s put that in our syllabus.” Then we write their syllabi up on huge post-it notes that we put on the wall. And then everybody gets little post-it notes. And they get to walk around, and I ask them to do what I was asked to do at the Digital Pedagogy Lab, which is to say, “Who is the student that these authors are imagining as they write the syllabus?” Write it on your little post-it note, put your reactions on the wall. And what they very quickly learn is that they too have absorbed the idea that students are antagonists, students can’t be trusted, students are going to mess up somehow. And so then, as a class, we sit down together, and we say, “Okay, we don’t want to do that. We don’t want to make those assumptions. So how are we going to write a document that accurately sets out expectations, that also supports and that communicates trust?”

Rebecca: In chapter three, you focus a bit on assessment. And many faculty note that when students do less well than maybe they thought they were going to or anticipated on a graded activity, they might become disengaged or lose interest or disappear. Can you talk a little bit about ways that we can make our assessments more equitable, and to make expectations more transparent to our students?

Cate: There are so many ways that we can do that. Including students in the process at all points, I think, is a way that we can never really go wrong. But I think that one of the most important ways we can approach assessment is to think about, are we being inclusive? are we giving our students the tools they need to be able to show us what they know?…because so often, what we’re actually grading or assessing or giving feedback on is, how they write about what they know, or how they make an equation about what they know, we’re not actually just finding out what they know, what they have learned. So giving them multiple ways to express what they know, is a great way of leveling the playing field of allowing students who maybe don’t excel at writing to still be able to show “Hey, I have been thinking, I’ve been turning this over and over, I have some new appreciation for whatever it is art, or music, or fishbones, or an equation, or set of chemical compounds.” So in my classes, it’s traditional for history to be assessed through writing papers. And I certainly do have my students do written work, I don’t get rid of it altogether. But I also make an assignment where my students get to create projects. And they can do anything they want to, except write a paper. So they do things like make quilts, and food, and board games, and they knit and make pottery. I’ve had people make raps and sea shanties. I’ve had people dress up as pirates and come talk to us about a day in their life. All of these things are based on historical research. All of these things have a reflective component at the end. But for a student who really struggles with writing, for example, this gives them a way of being able to show me they have been learning that term, that they have done research, that they’ve really engaged with the class material in a way that doesn’t limit them in any way.

John: In chapter 4, you address kindness in the classroom. Could you share a couple of ways in which faculty can display kindness in their classroom interactions?

Cate: I think one of the most basic and important ways that we show kindness in the classroom is we learn who our students are. And that means names. And that is increasingly challenging. It depends on how many, if you’ve got 300 students in your classroom, how do you learn their names? I tend to have smaller classes. So it is really doable for me to learn their names, but I still rely on tools that helped me do that. So I bring in name tags, and for the first several sessions, my students will write their name on their name tag, and if they feel comfortable, they’ll put their pronouns on there too. I know that Vigi Sathy and Kelly Hogan talk about having name tents in their big lecture classes. And those name tents are also color coded. So then that helps them put people into small groups. People can turn those name tents on their end when they want to indicate they want to participate in conversation. They’re wonderful, wonderful tools. So there’s lots of resources out there that sort of suggests there are many, many ways to make sure that we’re getting to know our students, but I think that’s a really basic thing we do that says, “I know who you are. I know when you’re here, I really appreciate you being here and being engaged in a classroom activity.” I also think that it’s important to teach our students how to be in that space together. I think this is really important coming out of the height of the pandemic. We’re not done yet. but we are coming out of those most acute years. And certainly I have seen among my students on campus, that there was a period of time where it was odd for them to interact with other people because they hadn’t had practice. They had been in lockdown. They had been at home. They had been doing school online. And so we really had to sort of think about how do we interact? How do we talk to one another? How do we show that we respect one another? When something goes wrong, how do we show that we are accountable and responsible? How do we apologize, and mean, it. These are all things that we need to teach, as instructors to make sure that our classrooms are kind spaces in which learning can really happen.

John: Is there anything else you’d like to share with our listeners that we haven’t yet discussed?

Cate: One of the things that comes up in the conclusion to my book is that it’s very easy to feel tossed around in higher education, like we’re in tiny little boats on a very large and angry ocean.[LAUGHTER] And certainly, there are structural problems that need our attention in higher ed. But we’re not powerless. And we get to make changes in the spheres that we control. And we get to approach our students, as fellow human beings who matter, we get to treat ourselves as people who matter. And kindness is the fabric of that, it’s what weaves everything together. It is the material from which we build inclusive spaces, and spaces where people’s words and ideas are valued. And without kindness, we end up with places that are disrespectful, we end up with places where people do not feel like someone’s listening to them. So I have the metaphor, that little boat being tossed around in my conclusion, but ultimately say, if we can just be kind to one another, then we can sort of temper that storm.

Rebecca: It’s a great image to end on, for sure in your book. And it’s such a great metaphor for really thinking through what sometimes it really feels like to be in higher ed, not only with our students, but with other colleagues. There’s lots of ways to bring this kindness work into other spaces within higher ed outside of the classroom as well.

Cate: Yeah, I agree. And one of the projects I’ve been involved with over the last couple of years is something called Care in the Academy, which is about showing kindness and care to each other. So focused on faculty, focused on staff, focused on those relationships, and how we show one another that we matter to each other.

Rebecca: Can you share some examples about what that might look like in spaces outside of the classroom?

Cate: Yeah, so some really concrete things that we recommended after 18 months of really thinking critically about this issue were things like extended bereavement leave. Places tend to give us three, maybe five days and they’re immediate. And the idea is that whatever mourning or immediate grieving you need to do will happen in like a week. And that’s just not practical or realistic, or how humans work. And in many cultures, it’s also not reflective of the way that people process death. So we talked about having maybe another three to five days that you can use for a year after someone passes and you can mark an anniversary, or maybe there is a ceremony that you need to attend. Or maybe there is a ritual that you need to perform, and you take time away to be able to do it. It’s a very small thing, but it makes such a difference in sort of saying we respect what a difficult time this is for you. Trying to improve reimbursement culture, there are so many people who are stringing things along on their credit cards, basically making loans to their institutions, and trying to speed up the process by which they are repaid as a basic form of respect, I think is really, really important to the way that we all function around one another. To not assume that people are sitting on vast mountains of cash that they can just make available to do things like go to conferences or to travel to another town or whatever the thing is. I think that’s also really important.

John: That’s especially true for junior faculty, for people who are contingent faculty and who are struggling a bit because this occupation does not pay all that well. It gets a lot easier once your kids are out of the house and you’re past those stages, but it’s a struggle for a very large share of faculty.

Cate: Especially given student loans being what they are. This lasts a very long time.

Rebecca: It’s something that sometimes faculty have in common with students and we don’t always recognize or acknowledge that.

Cate: Yeah, I agree. And I think our students don’t often look at us and think, “Oh, wow, they’re still paying off their student loans.” [LAUGHTER] They tend to see us as something other than precarious. Whether we are in a contingent position or not, very often our financial lives are in some kind of precarious situation, just because the reality of funding higher education careers is what it is right now.

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

Cate: What’s next is that I am going to go read a book about biomimicry. And biomimicry is looking to the natural world for patterns that all organisms share, and taking wisdom from those patterns. So it helps us in terms of ecology. But I just heard a podcast that was applying this to the way that we organize our institutions, and thinking about the way that organisms heal after fire or clear cutting or a flood, for example, the different jobs that different organisms have in the recovery process, and thinking about how we make really resilient institutions and organizations by looking to the natural world. So I know very little about it. I’ve listened to that one podcast. So I am going to go read a book that is all about that topic.

Rebecca: That sounds really fun.

Cate: Yeah, I think so.

John: And I think we’ve all needed a bit of resilience over the last few years with the challenges we’ve all faced. So it sounds like an interesting way of addressing that issue.

Cate: Yeah, I’m hoping I will get some fresh ideas.

Rebecca: Reading stuff that’s unfamiliar is always a great way to reinvigorate our own work.

Cate: Yeah, and I have not really considered biology since I was 16 years old and took my GCSEs. So this will be a real treat and a delight to exercise part of my brain that hasn’t been exercised in a while.

John: Well, thank you for joining us. It’s great talking to you. And I really enjoyed reading through your book. It grew from this very nice, useful essay that many of us were reading through during the pandemic, to a much more elaborate discussion of how to be an effective teacher in all aspects of teaching.

Rebecca: Such a needed robust resource.

Cate: Thank you so much. It was such a pleasure to be with you today and have this conversation. And I really appreciate all your kind words about the book.

Rebecca: We look forward to talking to you in the future, hopefully the near future.

Cate: 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]