431. A Curated AI Framework

Students can use AI tools to support or short-circuit their learning. In this episode, Tim Curry joins us to discuss how he uses AI tools to support students with diverse prior knowledge in a carefully curated framework.

Tim is a lecturer in the Department of Health Sciences at Northern Arizona University. He is developing AI applications for autism research and tribal health service while building Northern Arizona University’s Applied Health Analytics program. He’s also working on the completion of his PhD degree in health equity technology.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Students can use AI tools to support or short-circuit their learning. In this episode, we examine how one instructor uses AI tools to support students with diverse prior knowledge in a carefully curated framework.

[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 Tim Curry. Tim is a lecturer in the Department of Health Sciences at Northern Arizona University. He is developing AI applications for autism research and tribal health service while building Northern Arizona University’s Applied Health Analytics program. He’s also working on the completion of his PhD degree in health equity technology. Welcome Tim.

Tim: Hey, John, it’s great to be here.

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

Tim: Yeah, I am, actually. I’ve got one here that is this really nice licorice root spearmint mixture.

Rebecca: That’s an interesting combination. I don’t know that I’ve heard of that.

John: And I have just a plain old oolong tea today.

Rebecca: A nice choice. I’ve swung back to old habits, and I have an English afternoon tea.

John: Must have been a tough day, huh? [LAUGHTER] Today, you’ve been doing some interesting work in which you’re planning to have students work through a learning portfolio constructed for each course module in a health science course in which they’ll complete a structured sequence of interactions with a chatbot tutor that you’ve created. Before we discuss the details of this course, can you tell us a little bit about the course? How large is it? What’s the course level? And who are the students that generally would be taking this course?

Tim: Yeah, absolutely. So this course that we’re focused on today is HS 300 which is our human diseases course. It’s quite an interesting course. A typical class is usually about 40 students, usually juniors, although I do get sophomores and seniors in there. And why I say it’s an interesting class is even though it lives within our department’s program of public health I would say, in the average term, I only have about half the class filled with public health majors. The rest of them are a mixture between students who want to go pre med, so nursing students or med school, DPT, biomedical engineering, and then also a smattering of psychology majors. So it’s quite a diverse group I’ve got in this class, to be very honest, with a range of different backgrounds.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about your general approach to how you’re planning to address the class? A little bit about the portfolio and the structure overall?

Tim: Yeah, do the objectives of this class are for students, broadly speaking, I won’t get into the full curriculum guide here, but broadly speaking, is for them to better understand not only a wide range of human diseases across all of our systems, but also the application of that knowledge to both the clinical side, so think more like Western care and also the public health side. So we have this interesting mixture here. In terms of the portfolios, the reason I chose to start with this class with this concept was, as you can probably imagine, with the varied degrees I have in there, I have students walking into this class with everything from having completed anatomy and physiology I and II and maybe a pathophysiology course, all the way to students who haven’t seen biology since high school, because they just haven’t reached that point yet. That makes it a challenge. It’s a little hard to talk about congestive heart failure if they don’t know the anatomy of the heart. So that is the reason I chose this approach, is because, and I know we’ll get into this, really is focused around meeting the student where they’re at in their current process of learning, which I think is really the best approach, especially in a course like this, where background knowledge is so critical.

John: Could you walk us through the steps that students would take through in a typical module? And I believe each one of these modules is for one week?

Tim: Yes, that is right. So, the way I prefer to build my Canvas shells, and it’s the same in person or online for the general layout, is that I start off each week, beginning in week two, where they have to do the content first before we actually dive into the meat of the week. So the first thing that they have is they are given a portfolio to work from. And the way that these actually works is that they are handed a file, and this file is the thing that I have produced for each week, and it starts off with some core basics about that particular body system, and then we progress into the diseases, and then progress into more application of their work. And they’re going to take that file and not only work to fill out all of the spots that I have included in there, but they’re going to take that file and give it to this AI bot that I have built out, which is going to act as their own personalized Socratic form of a tutor to actually help them work through the entire file. So that’s the general layout with the portfolio. Once they actually go and turn that in, that actually unlocks the rest of the week’s work. So for an in-person class, this means they got to do the portfolio before they show up to class. For an online class, it means they have to do it before they can engage with the more advanced application we would be doing that week.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about why you chose this approach and how this counters how a textbook is designed for a typical student?

Tim: Yeah, absolutely. I know I alluded to this briefly earlier, but when we have a course like this where in, effectively, I’ll call it 14 weeks, we’re going through every body system and covering well north of 100 different ways that we get sick, ill, and die.

Rebecca: Sounds really exciting, [LAUGHTER] all the ways you can die.[LAUGHTER]

Tim: That’s actually the way I kind of go and bring it in, was like, we’re going to go through so many things, and it’s going to convince you that nobody is normal. There’s just no possible way. But students actually really like it, and I hope not too many of them are freaked out by the time they [LAUGHTER] leave my course. So the reasons for this, I found that with a class like this, we really kind of have two options. The first one is, is that it falls into this very, what I’ll say is, traditional, classic style of a lecture class where we show up and we have to effectively spend the first day raising the bar for everybody so that day two, we can actually do some application work where we can challenge their knowledge. That is tough, because with the gambit of not only backgrounds, but also just experience levels in this class, I can tell you that any given week, if I were to do that, I’d be boring, probably about a third to half the class, because they already know about the systems, they’ve been through the courses, they work in the field, whatever it may be. So that is kind of the downside of that approach, and I’ll be honest, the textbook we had been using for this, which I think is a fantastic textbook, if… here’s the big if… if you have some anatomy and physiology under your belt. If you don’t, it’s a lot to swallow, like it is a thick textbook. It’s phenomenal, and it doesn’t adapt. It’s a textbook. So that was really the core reason why I went down this path, was I’ve been working with artificial intelligence chatbots since 2015 which was pre all of what we have now, and back then, it was a lot of work. [LAUGHTER] It was tough work to actually get them to where we wanted them to be. So I’ve been going and doing this for quite some time, and ever since openAI kind of broke the teaching world in November of 2022 it’s been really fun to start to begin to play and see where are these capacities going. And suddenly we’re at this place where we can use this tool that our students can access for free to give them this individualized approach. So my hope is going into this term, that what this will do is truly meet the student where they’re at, if they’re that student who has just one prior biology I course, no anatomy, and physiology, it’s going to spend more time going through the anatomy that they need to know to be able to comprehend the diseases and the processes that we actually care about in this class.

John: Now I have to say this, if the students do not have any anatomy and physiology under their belts, they’re probably a bot already. [LAUGHTER] But moving on, one of the things I noted in looking through some of the modules that you’ve created is that you put in suggested times. And this is an approach that I know Betsy Barre has suggested in terms of a couple of variants of student workload calculators that she’s created. And we’ll include a link to our podcast with her about that. Could you talk a little bit about why you’ve included that and how you came up with the estimates of how long students are likely to take with each of these activities?

Tim: Yeah, absolutely. So I am a big fan of providing estimates or ranges with the students. Personally, whenever I build a course or rebuild a course, I use the Wake Forest workload calculator that they have on their website. I love it. I think it’s fantastic as a way to just get a general scoping. And this also comes from… I have to think here… I believe at this point it’ll change after 5:30pm today, but at this point, I’ve taught 184 sections of courses, and this has been consistent feedback I’ve had from the students I’ve taught, is it’s really helpful. When I look at the list of things to do, if there are like numbers beside it, that even if they’re not 100% right, they give me a way to kind of calibrate my brain. And so I have some idea about how to schedule out my week. I don’t know about you, John, but our students here, just because Flagstaff, if they’re residential, it’s just an expensive place to live. They’re not only full time as a student, they’re working two or three jobs on top of that. So being able to tell, like, where should I spend my time, what should I do first, is really important to them. So the estimates in this I kind of went and derived a couple ways. The first way was I went through and tried to turn my beginner mindset back on. It’s a little bit harder when you spend a lot of time in the field, but I tried to go backwards and work through this and get a feeling for how many questions do I need to ask if I’m just that average student who maybe has done anatomy and physiology I but hasn’t gone further, which is kind of the bar I generally see as an average in this class, and then I will fully admit, I have some unpaid help, called family members, [LAUGHTER] who are more than willing to go and jump in and just like dive into it and go and tell me what worked, what didn’t work. They’re all individuals who don’t have the background, so they represent that one extreme on the far end of their really having to learn everything. So that’s the way I got this rough estimate for what I’m starting with this term. And then one of the things I’ll do is, this term, as they work through the portfolios, I am actually asking for them to report back as they go and turn into each one about approximately how much time did you spend on each one, and so that I can better calibrate this tool as I move forward. And so we’re on a grand adventure.

Rebecca: I had some activities that I did that with students, and had them kind of mark their time and track their time, and I think it was just as interesting for me as it was for them to understand how they spent their time, or where they might spend more time than they thought. I can also see how, having times broken apart, even if they’re not 100% accurate for each individual student, it does give you the idea that you’re going to spend more time on this activity than this activity. This is maybe more important, and therefore I want you to spend more time on it. And it’s a way of conveying some of that prioritization that needs to happen, that students have a difficulty doing if they don’t have expertise in the subject.

Tim: Yeah, and I’ll say as well, I know, because I have these students in class every term, and I love them, but there will be some of them that will spend way too much time on one part, it’s the kid who’s clearly gone into med school, will do great as a physician, or whatever they go and pick, and hopefully this helps them keep on track where they’re not spending five hours in the first bit that should be 15 minutes, and then they panic about the rest of the thing.

John: Yeah, those relative weights are important just in terms of showing how much priority students should place on each.

Tim: Absolutely.

John: We know that active learning approaches, as you’re planning for this course, tend to result in increased learning by students and longer-term knowledge retention and more transfer ability. Yet, when students are asked about how much they feel they’ve learned when they’ve been using active learning, they generally report that they learn more in lecture courses because they feel that they’re not getting as much because they’re struggling with things and any gaps in their knowledge is becoming transparent, while if they’re sitting in a lecture class, they can sit there and nod and smile and everything makes a lot of sense. How are you going to sell active learning to the students?

Tim: That is great. And to be frank, you bring up an item here that is one of my favorite, just bizarre oddities, that I get to explain to my classes. So I have a couple approaches on this one, the first one is on day one, which, as we record, this is a couple hours away, actually, this is one of the first things I actually go and bring up, is to explain, this is not a lecture class. We’re not doing PowerPoint slide decks the whole class. Here’s why. And I explain all these points about the fact that active learning actually does make you learn more and, more importantly, helps you develop these skills that you’ll actually need to make yourself career ready. And that’s really important, and it feels uncomfortable, because you’re going to get it exposed, you’re going to learn what you know you know and what you don’t know that you don’t know [LAUGHTER] and that can be frustrating. It can be anxiety inducing. So I think the first bit is just calling that out, bringing it up, and just acknowledging it from the start. So I think that is part one. Part two is I have built in, and this is an item I actually learned from some fellow faculty at a conference about a year and a half ago. I actually have required work at the end of each week, which is a very short self-reflection that they have to do. And it’s 10 questions, and it includes things around this area, about like, preparation for class, what’d you learn? What you feel like you had a hard time with? …all of that, and I have seen that with just even holding them, of course, the same, that inclusion, the feedback has been phenomenal in that they really enjoy being effectively forced to pause after they’re done with everything and really think about what did they do this week, and then how do I improve for next week? And then I do think the third and final bit, which I realize I might be uncorking a can of worms here on you, John and Rebecca, but I use ungrading for all of the courses I teach, and in fact, for this particular course, I use a contract grading style. And so I do think that that is one major component, is utilizing that style that supports this active learning, where they know that they’re in this effectively safe space to work in, where mistakes are expected, and I’m not as worried about the mistakes. I’m more worried about the mistake I see you make 15 times in a row and not learn. So being able to get that feedback and learn in real time is really the key. And when they feel safe about their grade, I found that they’re much more willing to take risks.

Rebecca: That’s a lot to unpack on that first day.

Tim: Yeah it Is. It’s a big first day. And really, I’ll be honest, it’s the first week. It’s not really the first day, because as much as I would love to dive into how do we diagnose disease on the first day, they haven’t done anything yet.[LAUGHTER] So we can’t do that yet. And so it’s really the first week, I should say.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about the Gemini Gem that you created, that students are interacting with, maybe a little bit more about what their process looks like, how you’re going to coach students around hallucinations, what’s it allowed to do when it’s interacting with students, and what other kind of constraints and guardrails you have in place?

Tim: Absolutely. So Gemini Gems, just for those folks who may not know, this is effectively a, let’s say it’s a tailored version of Gemini that we can instruct to behave in certain ways, or we can give certain knowledge background to that allows us to make a customized chatbot without having to go through the hassle of fully training your own chatbot. So this particular Gem was a bit of a journey over the last approximately three months, where I abstractly played with a range of different models, and for my own work and myself, I work around not only the Gemini bots, but also ChatGPT and Claude, just being like our big three and occasionally Llama, but I don’t do a lot in there. So the creation of the Gem really came about when I went and sat down and said, Okay, if I were able to spend time with every single student, one on one, how would I approach tutoring them? Because that would be our dream. They would learn so much, and there’s just no way, unless I can clone myself a bunch of times. There’s just no way. And I came to kind of three broad, I’ll say, pedagogical points I wanted the tutor to do. The first one being Socratic style. So I don’t want it to just go and lecture. All of the students I’ve taught for years and years now have been very clear. They don’t like that. They want to be involved. So Socratic style. So we’re going to ask a question. I might give you a little bit of a knowledge point, and then we’re going to expand on that, but I’m going to ask you to really use your brain and engage. Point two is that we want to assess prior knowledge and learning. So does Rebecca know about cardiac anatomy and valves, or do we need to kind of back it up and maybe go and cover the basics. So when we dive into a new portfolio, that’s really the first thing it does is to go and ask you a question related to where we’re about to dive into. So again, the heart is my jam. I’ll be very honest. That’s what I do a lot of work in. And so if we’re talking about cardiac disease this week, we’re going to assess, do you actually know about the heart. How much do you know? Is this enough for us to actually talk about disease or not? And if it’s not, let’s back it up and start there, and then go for it. And then the final one is that idea of the zone of proximal development, that idea that ideally we want to be asking a question that’s they’re getting about 80% correct, and so they’re encouraged, but not overconfident, because if they’re getting 100% correct, they think they know this and they really know about half of that. So those were the three bits I began with, and from there, I built out this prompt. The things it is allowed to do, it’s allowed to act in these three ways, and it’s allowed quite a bit of freedom to be in this encouraging form of a tutor that supports work and tells the student when they’re wrong. Because I think all three of us have probably engaged with a bot, and I know that Gemini can be one of the more challenging ones, where it cheers you on, even though it’s blatantly wrong. [LAUGHTER] We don’t want that, so it is encouraged to constructively criticize, I’ll say, when the student is wrong and help them correct that. What it’s not allowed to do, though, is also really important. There’s a whole component to my system prompt that gives it a rule set of what it can’t do. It’s not allowed to just fill out the file for them. It’s not allowed to write their answer for them either. It can help critique their work that they’re going and putting in to kind of help them improve it, but it’s not allowed to just go and do that for them. Those are the guardrails in place, broadly, in this one. And then, for this particular class, I think you also asked about things like hallucinations and background knowledge. I’ll start with the latter. So background knowledge, given the fact that we’ve been studying human disease for quite some years at this point, to go and say it briefly, like at least 100, I found that when I played with this by giving it some RAG files, so some files it can pull from, it actually slowed the bot down and didn’t improve the answers. Because realistically, when we’re talking about human problems, sites like Mayo Clinic, Medscape, all these free sites are already included in the build of the AI, so it already has all that. So what it really needs is more fine tuning to make sure it’s focused on, which, again, is a guardrail, focused on accepted knowledge in this realm from reputable sources, versus trying to give it a bunch of specific files that it then has to go through and search and find what it’s looking for. Now, I will say on the flip side, I have a different course that’s exercise considerations for special populations. So this is a little bit more of my background, exercise physiology wise. How do we do activity with a cardiac patient or a cancer patient or a child who has autism spectrum level three. And in this one, I did provide files because I found that especially with a topic like autism, there’s just so much out there that it can inadvertently get onto the wrong things, that it was better to give it position statements from major fields and bodies to go and pull from to make sure it stays locked in on where I want it to go. So that’s effectively the building of this bot. I have found that I can generally use the baseline system prompt around how this bot behaves and then add in some of the details I want specific to a course to adapt it fairly quickly. Finally, hallucinations. And so I got to ask, what’s like a favorite for you that you’ve experienced around a bot hallucinating a fun thing for you.

Rebecca: I don’t know if it’s fun, but something I’ve seen a lot is hallucinated sources and students claiming that they really do exist. [LAUGHTER]

Tim: My favorite was… now, this was back in 2023, so it has improved, I will say that… But in class, asked it for a weight training plan for a adult who was 85, had never worked out in their life and just wanted to play with their grandkids, which was a example form of a client for that class. And it gave them Olympic lifts on day one. [LAUGHTER] It was like, we’re doing clean and power jerks, like, what are you doing? No, absolutely not. So hallucinations, as either or both of you may have seen, openAI released a white paper at the end of last year where they supported that currently, mathematically, hallucinations are going to happen, period. It’s not a thing that can be fully wiped out, and that’s just the reality we’re in. So what I actually do is they work through the portfolio, then their task two behind that is, by the end of the week, we are going covering that working content, I actually give them my key, and they’re in charge of actually reading through this key and going saying, were there any points where my answers weren’t quite correct? And I actually view that as a valuable skill, because we’re working on going and teaching them that hallucinations exist. Bias exists in these things as of right now. They always will. Hopefully, maybe there’s a way to wipe that out in the future. Right now, it doesn’t seem like there really is. So we’re going to not only use it for learning, but then we’re going to check ourselves against a known source to see where might it have led you astray. And I’ll be honest, that is one of the big unknowns, because, yeah, I’ve done some testing within a small group, but once we roll it out in this semester, it’s going to be north of 100 students who are going to go and do this. We’re going to see what is the actual rate of students having incorrect answers. If it becomes too great, then we have some tuning we need to do on the spot.

John: I hope that you’ve asked the bot to ignore anything coming from the CDC since January of 2025. But going back to the issue of assessing student work. You mentioned you’re using ungrading, but yet you still do have to assign grades, typically at midterm and at the end, but you do have students reflecting each week on what they’ve learned and their progress. So how are you connecting their assessments into those grades? And how often are you doing that?

Tim: Yeah, there’s a couple things I do, so starting with the smaller items in class, let’s pretend like we’re about to walk into week two. So you’ve done the week two portfolio. The moment I go and hand that in, I can immediately get to the key, which is the goal is they can go and get to it right away and see, were there any problems there? And now we’re in class. The first thing we do every week, day one in class is we start, they get into their groups that I pre assign. And to be very honest, until week six, it’s just random. I want them to work with a bunch of people in that class. So they get into these preset groups, and the first thing we do is a tRAT or team readiness assessment test. Now I’ll kind of pause here, because I know it’s a mixture here, John, I’m going seeing a nod and a smile. I feel like you’ve used this. Is that right?

John: I haven’t used it myself, but I do know how it’s used in team-based learning.

Tim: And Rebecca, is that a thing you’re aware of, or would you like me to kind of walk through like, what is a tRAT?

Rebecca: I think for our audience, we need to walk through.

Tim: Awesome. So a tRAT is probably one of my favorite tools for in-person classes, because I effectively get to trick my students into taking a quiz in class that they like taking, which is quite an experience. So this is a multiple choice quiz that you can use these cards that are pre-keyed. I will admit that I’ve actually moved to running a Google script on this. And the idea is basically they work as a small group. So I do groups of three or four, no larger than four in my classes, and what they have to do is, as a group, they go and decide, hey, for question one, we think the right choice is B, and they go and click on it, and if it’s wrong, it will go and turn red and say, try again. So they have to reason their way through and every time I’m wrong. I’m reducing the amount of points I could earn for that one. So because I use four choices in mine, if I get it right on the first thing we choose, it’s worth four points. If I don’t, it goes down to two and then one and then zero, because if you clicked on all four, you truly have no idea what was right or wrong there. Now for my classes, for this term, because I want them focused on their knowledge, and what do they know, and what do they not know? All that they have to do is report what they got, and if they’re there in class and do it, they get marked as all done with that. With that, I know I’ve heard feedback from other faculty being like, “Well, if that grade doesn’t go in the book, don’t they just not try?” And I actually go and say, like, “No, that’s actually the opposite of what I see is, they know how they did, they don’t like not doing well [LAUGHTER] in the class, especially if they spent all this time engaging.” So what they do is, I see from effectively week 2 to week 14, the grades just keep increasing, week over week over week. And what I actually do with these is, instead of just regurgitating what they just learned through the portfolio, we actually take one step more advanced, and I have 15 questions organized, usually around anywhere between four to six major conditions we’re going to cover. And we ask questions that are more advanced and more case application work, where if you don’t understand the background, you’re not going to get this right. And because it’s forcing them to do peer-to-peer engagement and reason through what is right or wrong, it requires them to really assess their own work and knowledge. So that’s a bit of it is, in class that goes and gives me a timestamp, because every single attempt I see live… that goes back to a Google sheet. So I see everything, I can see where we are right on the first attempt, where are we not. Where might we need to refresh on day two, and then the really big bulk of it is around that what happens after the tRAT? And what actually occurs in my class after that is we’ll spend that last hour of that first day and then an hour fifteen on our day two doing some quite advanced application work. So as an example, one week when we talk about pulmonary conditions, they go straight from the tRAT into learning what a SOAP note is. So, for those who don’t know, this is a way that we write a note in more of the clinical medical field. So they learn about this way of writing notes, and then they, as a team, actually work with a bot that I will assign them that acts as a patient, and they have to produce a SOAP note for that that they then have to present to the class on day two. So it’s all, can they pull out the right information? I f they think it’s problem A, they think it’s pneumonia, what other questions do you need to ask about that? And that’s our weekly work. And all of this at the really end of the term leads up to the culminating project in our class, which is three parts. For this class, this is where I’m really assessing them on what do they know? And they can revise and improve. They pick a disease that exists today. So as much as smallpox is fascinating, it doesn’t exist, except for in labs and hopefully never out in our globe again. And so they pick a thing that they find intriguing. The first bit is they have to do research and write me a historical overview of this disease and how it has impacted our health over time, including, how has it affected our clinical past, how has it affected our public health past, our policies, all of that stuff. So it’s this really overview, big scale idea. Number two, they go and take what they just went and wrote there and turn it into fact sheets. Now a fact sheet, I guarantee both of you have seen before, because if you’ve been into a physician, they have those things like: “Get the flu shot, now. Here’s why.” That’s a fact sheet. So they have to write one about their thing that they picked for a general adult, one for a physician, and one for a person who might be in Congress and might be making policy. So it requires them to take this knowledge and turn it and go and say, “What does this general adult need to know? What does maybe a physician need? What does a policy maker need?” And then the last of it is, and we’re ramping up into this, is they’ll actually give a presentation in week 15 of our term, where they have to propose a potential public health program that would help within a certain group of people for this thing and improve their health, which requires them to really thoroughly not only understand the disease, the processes behind but also the populations affected. How might we reach those groups? How do we help them, like, what are they lacking? And then, how would we actually go and reach them? And for this group, that’s usually their first time they’ve ever done this, so that’s a big ask, but they have the knowledge they can do it successfully on that. So really, a lot of it is around the projects, but everything builds up to those projects.

Rebecca: So it sounds like, with all the project-based learning that you have in here, you’ve certainly been thinking a bit about student use of AI and its potentials for cognitive offloading and academic integrity that we know come up in many conversations around AI. Can you talk a little bit more about the reasons why you chose some things and how that might relate to academic integrity issues?

Tim: Absolutely. So I think this is the core of a conversation we could have for hours on here. I have students every term who it’s very clear that a paper and assignment was written by AI. I don’t think that’s going away anytime soon. And [LAUGHTER]] the reality as well is there was, and I would have to go find it again. But there’s been quite a bit of work that’s shown that the majority of employers are expecting them to walk out of a college with some generative AI skills. So we need to be going and teaching this. And part of that is we need exposure. So for myself, I think there’s a couple parts to this question. The cognitive offloading is an item that, again, I do address in week one or week two, just kind of, depending on how week one rolls about just having kind of a very open discussion at the start of a class for about five minutes. About these are the risks if you, for example, try to acquire foundational knowledge and you just offload that to the AI writing the assignment for me. These are the risks that are run, and here’s why I don’t want you to do that. This bot that I am getting you to work with is specifically designed to force you to learn and think and then actively engage in this to help prevent that. So that’s the first bit. The second bit as well is we do actually go and talk about throughout a class like this, we go into a little bit, and I will fold this in maybe the first five minutes, kind of threaded throughout the term, we go and talk about more of this ethical or philosophical component with AI usage, because it goes beyond just things like power and water that is used for going and training these bots. And we do go and talk about that, but we’re beyond that here, and we go and talk about things like, “Well, what is the purpose of learning? When do we use these as an enhancement versus using it in a way that’s going to go and detriment your learning and your skill development? How do we avoid that?” And I’ll be honest, this is not the first term I’ve gone and spoken about these. I’ve done this for a couple terms now. And the feedback I’ve heard, which I suspect both of you will have heard if you have gone and done this before, is that students actually really appreciate it, because a lot of our kids, especially right now, they were in high school during the rapid pandemic lockdown era, and then maybe hybrid, and then maybe [LAUGHTER] back into lockdown. And what I’ve heard from them is they were threatened, and they were told by a lot of the folks in high school, and then moving into being freshman and sophomore, “If you use this, I’ll fail you out of the class, you’ll get expelled.” And so they’re afraid to admit any type of use. And nobody’s talked with them about, how do we develop this as a tool for your toolkit versus replacing your brain. And once we actually get into that, then we can actually explore this region in a much more effective way. So I think we need to have an open talk about this, and then as we build out parts of the class providing the guidance they need. So for example, for the paper that we just spoke about, that historical paper, they’re allowed to use an AI, and I have this built right into that. I’m fine with them if they want to go and use it for brainstorming, for helping them outline the paper, feedback on their own work, feedback on the paper. And I want to hear their voice. I want to hear their writing. So it’s not allowed to write the paper for them. I want them to write it. So I think it’s both the education and then being very clear about what you want them to do or not do, and then why.

John: And given the nature of the assignment, they’re already seeing how AI can be useful in assisting them in various ways that can carry on into their future careers. And the ungrading aspect of it also takes a lot of that pressure of grades off, allowing them to focus on learning. So, those are approaches I’ve recommended to many people trying to do these things. If we can show students how AI can be useful, and if maybe we shift their focus from getting the highest grade to learning the most, it can have an impact.

Tim: Yeah, well, and that, and I’ll go throw out a third one here, building them a box and allowing them the freedom to explore in that box. So I’ve told them what parts they need in the paper, but I’m allowing them to pick a disease that they actually want to research out, and that is a huge help, because when they want to do the work, I’ve had some phenomenal work done where I read it, and I’m like, man, you’re a couple reviews away from being able to publish this as like an undergraduate, like this is phenomenal.

John: That can really tap into intrinsic motivation. I know when I give students freedom in the choice of their projects or topics, they get so much more engaged than if they’re given a list of things they have to do.

Tim: Yeah, totally.

Rebecca: There’s a lot of steps week to week. There’s a lot of things that students need to do. In my experience, people don’t always read all the instructions [LAUGHTER] and maybe don’t follow through in the ways that we’re expecting them to. How are you hoping to prevent some of this? Especially because there’s a lot of steps in “this unlocks that” that can prevent someone from making progress during the week.

Tim: Yeah. So first one is, I have, unsurprisingly here, I’ll say I do have very clear instructions on like, what to do each week. And as you just said, some students just don’t read that. And the first thing that they do is, “oh my goodness, I can’t see the week,” email the professor. So the first bit is, I have learned how much instruction is enough versus how much is too much, because if it’s just pages and pages, they just won’t read it. So how to be succinct there? Part two is, for example, for the first portfolio, we’re going to actually start that in class. So that’s our day. We’re going to actually spend about half the class, and we’re going to sit there and work on it in class. So I’m available right then and there, and I make sure that anytime we have something new happening in a course, and this is the exact same in person or in an online course, is that I, at the start of class, I’m very, very clear both of the days about this is exactly what you need to do. And yes, that will not catch 100%. I still get a student or two out of 40 who are like, “Oh my goodness, it won’t open up. What am I doing wrong?” And I just have to go, remember to turn in your portfolio and that will unlock over the weekend they’re like, “Oh yeah, I recall that now.” So that has been kind of the path I found that works well, is to introduce complex things in class, including the projects, allow some free time where I can help them immediately, and then follow up with regular reminders of what to do.

John: Northern Arizona University, as Oswego does, has a site license for the use of Gemini. Would this work as well if all students didn’t have the same equitable access to a platform?

Tim: Yeah, that’s a big question. And in fact, I’ll say to throw a complexity here, we not only have the Gemini, we’re a Google, and we also have Copilot. I have no idea why, but we do. [LAUGHTER] So, we have lots of fun stuff. Without that, I think that even if you were to use the Gemini free version, that still gives you sufficient usage and space to be able to do a thing like this. The big asterisks I throw on there is making sure that we’re 100% transparent with our students about the fact of, “Hey, we don’t have a license. We’re going to do this. We’re going to do it through the Gemini bot, because the context window… for those of you who maybe that’s a new phrase, that’s basically the memory like in quotes for the bot… is gigantic, and the usage terms for the free tier are quite large enough to do this task. That anything you put into this bot, they could use it to train so don’t put anything that’s personal information into this bot. And I think that is a very good thing that we just need to teach in general, because there are a lot of students I teach who, one, they haven’t been told that they actually have this Gemini license for Ed that we pay for and that it’s all private. They’re going and using the ChatGPT free version, and they have no idea that they’re training on their data, unless they go to, like, flip off like a switch. And so that’s the first one, is we need to go and explain that, because there are students who, once they go and learn that are like, “oh my goodness, I put some very private stuff into here. I had no idea.” And then also thinking about the use in the class, for this class, for this purpose, we’re not asking them to reflect on anything. It’s straight disease and some biology learning. There’s nothing there that should put any personal information at risk. So I think it is 100% doable with the free license if I don’t have it. I think you just have to pick your bot wisely, because I’m a Claude person. I love Claude, and their free tier is very restrictive on the amount of use you get each day, so that’s not a good pick for this.

Rebecca: So we mentioned at the top some of the other ways that you’re using AI in your research. Can you talk a little bit about what that work looks like?

Tim: Yeah, I’ll try to be brief here. So I am a researcher on what’s called the ASD3 project, which is a joint project between the Oregon Health and Science U. and our institution. We have a PI here that I work under, and under that I work on the machine learning and deep learning, I’ll say, arm of the project. This is a multi-million dollar piece of work that looks at better understanding the autism experience for children, specifically around the disparities in the diagnosis and access of care. So a lot of data work. We work on several big code sets, so my work is mainly around using these advanced models to better understand where are these present, and how do we address them? So that’s that work. On the tribal health part of it. This is actually what I am planning on doing for my own doctoral research, is around trying to expand the availability of, specifically, heart care. So the cardiac rehab that I am trained in working on to individuals in a tribal space. The reason for this is that, based on some research we have, not only is heart health a major health burden within this space, but the relative risk of death from a heart-related problem in American Indians is somewhere around 53% higher than the average white adult’s, which is shockingly high. It’s the highest of any group. So, within this space, we also know that rehab is a thing that if we can get people into it, it dramatically drops the rate of a first event being like a heart attack, or if they’ve had their first one, their next event. But the problem is this, this is usually done in a hospital. And if you look at Navajo Nation, this is an area the size of West Virginia, they only have 13 hospitals total in that entire space. It’s very difficult to get to this, especially if you’re working full time, especially if you happen to be a farmer or you ranch or do both. So it can just be non feasible. So my work is focused around developing the foundational knowledge that I’ll take forward after I’m done, into the actual building of a generative AI that can supply this as a service within this space, and that is based on a very engaged approach, where we are working with folks from this space to help drive what does this AI look like? How does it engage? What do we do with cultural adaptation work? Because this is not my lived experience. It’s where I have knowledge, but it’s not my experience. It’s a different form of, a culture, a background, than what I am. So I am working on working with the tribes to be able to better drive what does this AI look like that we eventually build? How does it engage? And so that we’re not trying to walk in and propose a thing that doesn’t actually work because we don’t know what needs to be done yet. And so that’s, briefly speaking, the forms of AI that I do research on.

John: Some very valuable areas of research.

Tim: It’s exciting and frustrating at the same time. [LAUGHTER]

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

Tim: Yeah, in two hours, I’m going to go and see how this learning portfolio lands. That’s really what’s next for me is in two hours, we’re gonna dive into this for the first time for the entire class, and it’s no longer a trial. It is on the ground running. And yeah, I would love to do like a follow up, maybe in the summer or the fall, and we’ll actually have some figures and data and student feedback on how did the portfolios go? How did they change the class?

John: That would be great, and we’re looking forward to that conversation, so we’ll keep in touch.

Tim: Yeah, for sure. And I would just like to say, I do appreciate the time to chat, because I’m very excited about what we could do with AI in our space,

Rebecca: And it sounds like you’re finding ways to use it in all your spaces.

Tim: Absolutely.

Rebecca: So thanks for joining us. We appreciate your time and expertise.

Tim: And thank you, both of you.

John: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

John: If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts 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]

422. Negative Examples

To understand what a concept is, we must also understand what it is not. In this episode, Bill Goffe joins us to discuss his study of the effect of the use of negative examples on student learning outcomes.

Bill is a Teaching Professor in the Economics Department at Penn State.  He had previously been one of our colleagues here at SUNY Oswego. Bill is very well known in the profession for his Resources for Economists on the Internet, which was one of the very first internet guides available for economists, and it’s now hosted and sponsored by the American Economic Association. He has served as a member of the American Economic Association’s Committee on Economic Education, the Secretary-Treasurer for the Society of Computational Economics, an Associate Editor for Computational Economics and the online section of the Journal of Economic Education. Bill is currently co-chair of the Liberal Arts Teaching Group, a faculty learning community at Penn State.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: To understand what a concept is, we must also understand what it is not. In this episode, we discuss a study of the effect of the use of negative examples on student learning outcomes.

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

John: Our guest today is Bill Goffe. Bill is a Teaching Professor in the Economics Department at Penn State. He had previously been one of our colleagues here at SUNY Oswego. Bill is very well known in the profession for his Resources for Economists on the Internet, which was one of the very first internet guides available for economists, and it’s now hosted and sponsored by the American Economic Association. He has served as a member of the American Economic Association’s Committee on Economic Education, the Secretary-Treasurer for the Society of Computational Economics, an Associate Editor for Computational Economics and the online section of the Journal of Economic Education. Bill is currently co-chair of the Liberal Arts Teaching Group, a faculty learning community at Penn State. You can also find Bill on many listservs and forums devoted to teaching and learning. Welcome back, Bill.

Bill: Thanks, John. Appreciate that.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are:… Bill, are you drinking any tea with us today?

Bill: I am. I’m drinking Twinings green tea, decaf.

Rebecca: Nice, good choice. How about you, John?

John: I am drinking a peppermint tea from the same vendor.

Rebecca: Nice. I have hot cinnamon spice today because my daughter requested a pot of it. So we’re sharing a pot of hot cinnamon spice this afternoon.

John: Very nice as we approach the holiday season here when we’re recording. So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your recent working paper with Austin Boyle entitled “Negative Examples in Lecture Improve Student Learning. First, can you tell us what you mean by negative examples?

Bill: Sure. So you’re describing a concept to someone, let’s say a young child, and describing what a dog is, and you talk about different types of dogs: Dalmatians, Pomeranians, whatever. And unless you describe how a cat is not a dog, they’re probably not going to have a great idea of what a dog actually is. And this might be the case, say, for a second language learner, where you might have different terms for different types of mammals, also related to something called contrasting cases, where experts are very good at delineating different types of phenomena or different types of facts, if you will, say a physician or variation theory used in math. So these are all ways of getting students a rich understanding of something.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about what prompted your interest in negative examples?

Bill: Sure. So I’ve used clickers to teach for a long, long time. You currently use iClicker Cloud. Love it. And I tried to write a paper on just in general, using clickers to teach economics, and the paper didn’t really work very well. There’s reasons it’s never been written, and the reason was I use clickers in many different ways, so a little bit more focused approach to having a paper. And a few years ago, I came across the book How to Teach Economics by Yousuf Hamid. He was a high school teacher in Great Britain, and I had to read that. Well, to be honest, I read it during graduation. You have to go to graduation every year, but, you know, it always kind of work. And he talked a lot about negative examples. And I thought, “Oh, that’s pretty interesting.” And it also followed work by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark on the idea of direct instruction lowercase “d” and “i”, and I thought, “Well, that’d be an interesting to try, and it’s fairly focused,” and that’s the genesis of the paper, and pulled Austin into it as well.

John: We’ll include citations to those resources in the show notes. So, many people, when they’re teaching, tend to use primarily positive examples. What’s the problem with just using positive examples of a concept? I think you’ve already addressed that a little bit.

Bill: One example, the original work on this, at least formal original work… the idea goes back a long, long time… it was by Engelmann and Carnine, a book on direct instruction. And they give an example of a glem, a G- L-E,-M. Could you define that just with one example? Well, you could not. And they give an example of a pencil. Well, is it wood, or is the pencil horizontal, whatever? But it helps you focus in better on an idea when you understand what it’s not. For example, in economics, we talk about capital quite a bit. Unless you tell students, it’s not stock, they probably won’t pick up on that. Or you give examples of money, how money is very specific to economics. To economists, they’re probably going to pick up on it’s not some general sense of wealth.

John: And I can affirm that the concept of capital is one tht students have always had a lot of trouble about because the way we use it in economics differs from how it’s used in everyday use. And just for our listeners, could you explain the difference between the everyday use of capital and the way we use it in economics?

Rebecca: I’m an everyday listener.

Bill: Great. We’ll see if this works. So, to an economist, capital is something owned by business, manufactured and used to make things, so, a commercial mowing machine, a commercial oven, a jet liner, construction equipment. In everyday usage, it might also include financial capital, stocks, for example, might be considered capital. I would add one thing economists really haven’t done, the Bureau of Economic Analysis actually redefined capital recently, includes intellectual capital, and I just don’t teach that. It would be confusing, but there’s actually about as much intellectual capital these days as physical capital in the United States. But maybe in an intermediate course. I would do that.

Rebecca: Seems like an easy thing to get confused. Can you talk a little bit about how you pick which concepts to use negative examples for? I can imagine that some concepts are more ripe for this strategy than others.

Bill: Yes, we wanted something fairly limited, not a long concept of how to manipulate a graph or something, that could be a further work, but just a definitional sort of thing, but the students have misconceptions about this, as we described there with capital. And so we picked three different ones, money, capital, and technology. Technology in everyday use, our phones, for economists, it’s basically efficiency in the production process. You know, it is rather unfortunate, there’s what, 50,000 words in the English language, and we use words that are used in other ways just to make it more complicated. And I joke to students, I wish I could use different words, but that would hinder their further education, I fear..

John: And this has been a problem for economists for well over a century in those very same issues, and it would be nice if we didn’t have to do that, because it introduces that confusion right when students are just starting to learn the vocabulary of economics, and the way I talk to them about I say, “Hey, part of this is you’re just learning the language of economics, which may look similar to how we use these words in everyday use, but it’s a bit different, and you need to focus on these things because of the ways in which we’re using the term.”

Bill: I would add that I’ve seen some STEM education research papers. They teach concepts first and jargon second, and they find that actually improves learning because you’re trying to remember the terms and they’re using the terms, it overloads your working memory. And there you teach jargon later, they find improvements.

Rebecca: We do that sometimes in design, where we separate the technical skill from the concept, because learning them all at the same time can be complicated. I was thinking of a term that I run into all the time where there’s confusion, where this strategy might work well, which is digital accessibility, where people confuse the idea of meeting these standards to help people with disabilities gain access to content and material with the idea of “just available,” like it’s on the internet.

Bill: I learned that distinction just recently myself. I would add on choosing these terms, we found even after instruction, students got it right between 60 and 71% of the time. So we seem to have picked a nice set of terms and definitions to use.

John: Which is actually much better than they would tend to if you had only used positive examples. And we’ll talk about those results a bit in just a minute.

Rebecca: Can you tell us a little bit about your study? How you had it set up? How many students were involved?

Bill: Yes, we had about 1200 students. I teach large sections, about three sections every semester, about 340 students that did this over two semesters, basically just repeated things, get more power for our tests, and did a so-called crossover study. Crossover study, have your participants that are both controls and the intervention side of things. We did a 3×3 one, which is a little bit hard to describe on a podcast, where you can’t visualize things, but there’s a fairly famous one for ultra processed diets. You might have heard of by Hall and company in 2019. They put people into hospitals, they control directly what they ate, and one group got ultra processed foods for two weeks, the other group got more wholesome foods, I guess you could say, and then they switched who got the wholesome foods, who got the ultra processed foods. So thus you could deal with the fact that people might have responded differently, that different foods have different effects on people. And we did the same thing here in our study, except we had three concepts and three sections and three teaching methods.

John: So what were the three teaching methods that you used in the study?

Bill: So we just use a positive example, where I would list a half dozen examples of capital or money, or not quite of money, because there are quite six examples of that. Then with lecture, we had both positive and negative examples, where these things are money, this is not. This is capital. This is not. And a third type of teaching method was with a cliicker question, where I gave a student’s list of things. Some are positive, some are negative examples, and they just choosed which was which.

Rebecca: So what did you find? [LAUGHTER]

Bill: We found that including negative examples improved learning in the following class by about 21 percentage points. Let’s say the class got 50% correct just with positive examples, the class that got positive and negative examples got a 71% correct. So it is very statistically significant, it was robust with lot different statistical methods we used. So we’re pretty pleased with that, it was a clean result. Sample size helps, and I think probably doing it just with precise definitions, not long drawn out concepts or something like that.

John: Based on these results, would you suggest that perhaps we should all focus a bit more on using negative examples as well as positive examples in our teaching?

Bill: Yes, most certainly it’s an easy intervention. For example, you might know Jim Lang’s book Small Teaching, where he talks about easy interventions you can do, and this one’s easy, as long as you remember to do it. But you’re making up your notes, you think of things that aren’t whatever you’re talking about. You’ve probably seen those on exams, overall. Interesting result we had too that the clicker questions, the active learning, was no different than the lecture. So we’d like to do further work on that at some point, most active learning studies have been semester long, active learning not very well defined, and we didn’t find any difference here, so presumably, at some point, active learning make a difference be interesting to find out what that difference might actually be.

John: That’s an interesting result, and that’s probably worth some follow up.

Bill: I think partly on if you do see similar results with the flipped class and active learning and such, people don’t really have a framework on what they actually ought to be doing before class and what active learning should look like. I’ve got another paper on this, I mentioned, that uses so-called deliberate practice, That’s the 10,000 hour rule. It’s really not 10,000 hours, but there’s some key parts of active learning people don’t do that much. One is to focus on sub skills, for us in economics, things like change in demand versus change in quantity demanded. We generally don’t teach that specifically, is my thinking. And then also, you want to make connections between things. How are supply curves and demand curves separate? How are they similar? Because we remember things in terms of frameworks or schemas. The negative examples help develop schemas. You understand what things are not, kind of triangulating, if you will. And good active learning does the same thing, but if they’re just filling in a worksheet with numbers, they plug into the formula, that’s active learning, I suppose, but not much learning there. So we ought to focus more on exactly what active learning is doing for people.

Rebecca: Following your study, what are some different ways that you’ve incorporated this practice into your own teaching practice?

Bill: So I definitely try to do the negative examples, capturing, oftentimes what I see on these exams and when I’m thinking of a question, I always try to have it connected to something else. Oftentimes one concept’s related to another one, and we make that connection explicitly in clicker questions so that, “Oh, if you remember this, this is a variation of that.” For example, how is consumer price index similar and different than the GDP deflator would be one thing we do, and why are they fairly similar? To understand better how those things work. Oftentimes, I explain things based upon what they’ve done before. Another thing I do is we have very nice technology at Penn State, I have a main screen in the classroom. I have a side screen. Side screens, I put up an outline includes both the outline for the day and our bigger topics. So I’m constantly referring to that outline saying “what we’re doing here is a variation of this, is different than that,” and so forth. And if I do surveys as students, they find that very useful. A better study would be to not have the outline there someday and see how learning goes. I just now thought of that as an idea to do a study on.

John: We know that students come in with a weaker set of connections than faculty, and sometimes we assume that they’re able to make these connections and see the relationships, but they haven’t yet developed that skill, and sometimes it’s generally believed that that type of scaffolding, by putting up an outline of the main concepts you’re trying to get across, can help. But I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any tests of that, certainly not in economics, but I’m not sure if I’ve seen it in other areas either.

Bill: I have not. I can’t say I’ve looked very hard. I would add, to do my literature searches. Now I oftentimes start with ChatGPT, but that’s another whole podcast, [LAUGHTER] I suspect.

John: Yes, and there’s some other good tools out there, too. There’s research rabbit and other things that will actually, even in some cases, will provide more accurate results. But ChatGPT is getting a lot better all the time for these things.

Rebecca: Other than in the test results, have students responded? Or have you asked students about using the negative questions and how that impacts their learning?

Bill: I have not actually, that’s a good point. That’d be another thing to add. It’d be interesting see if they actually can pick up on that. Oftentimes, they’re not that great on understanding their own learning. Something we’ve all seen as instructors, someone thought they did much better on the exam than they actually did, which is something you want to avoid. That’s a tough place to be in and you have to be sympathetic as instructor when that occurs.

John: Now, one thing to keep Rebecca happy, we should also ask a little bit about the methodology that you used. In the study, you used both pooled data as well as panel data, and you also used ordinary least squares and binary dependent variable models. So could you just talk a little bit about why you used multiple approaches and how consistent were the results across those.

Bill: Yeah, the results are very consistent. So sometimes you don’t quite know what econometric approach you take, you can argue this is better, that’s better. And another approach, and it’s pretty common these days, I think it’s by far the most common, is you take multiple approaches and see if the results are robust, to see if you get similar results. Indeed, we did. So it’s a very happy occurrence when that occurs.

John: So were you surprised at the magnitude and strength of these results? I know when I read the paper, I was surprised at just how large that effect was, because it’s very rare to see effect sizes that large in a study of alternative teaching approaches.

Bill: I don’t think I had many preconceptions here. That’s odd. I certainly was pleased, but I can’t say I was quite surprised. It certainly makes me want to take this approach again with where we do the crossover studies, you can do many things with that. For example, we’re told we should teach about things students find interesting. Well, is that really true? I did an example of that this semester where Penn State students, they do a large fundraising project called Dance Marathon, or THON, and last year it raised $17 million, about half the student body is involved. And so I do a question about real prices, and the question was, did THON actually raise more money when you correct for inflation, you know, something they’re invested in a lot, and informally looking at the data, that didn’t seem to have any impact on that segment, on calculating real prices, I need to do more work on that, but I hope more people take this methodological approach, the crossover studies, where you could study a lot of things, the outlines, is it interesting or not, and so forth?

John: Because with the crossover study, you’re ruling out the possibility that there was just some systematic difference between the sections or between the other conditions, right?

Bill: Yes, exactly. We actually found there were differences between the sections. Some did much better on the questions than others, but by effectively pooling these different interventions and controls together, we can adjust for that. We can correct for that. I don’t see it that much in economics. John, have you seen it very much, the crossover studies?

John: I haven’t seen very many, but one that stands out, and I think it was done by economists, was back when the initial studies came out that suggested that when people took notes by hand, they remembered more than when they used a computer. I do remember a study, and I’ll include a citation to this in the show notes. What they did is they had all the students use mobile devices for note taking for a portion of the semester, they broke up the group into two halves, and half of them, for the first half of the semester, took all the notes using mobile devices, and the other half took notes by hand. And in the second half of the semester, they switched, and what they found was there was no difference between how students did when they took notes by hand and how those same students did when they took notes on the computer. However, those students who regularly chose to take notes on a computer, on average, did less well regardless of whether they were taking notes by hand or on a computer, which suggests that the students who choose to take notes by hand may be perhaps a little bit more focused on the material no matter how they’re taking the notes, and those students who may bring in mobile devices to use, perhaps may do it because they prefer having the availability of distractions. So it’s not quite the same thing, but it’s similar in that you’re controlling for the individual effects and separating it out so that you are getting a better comparison, correcting for any self selection in the people who are involved, which is really, I think, what crossover studies are trying to remove, the effect of any systematic selection between the groups.

Bill: I would add, I’ve surveyed my students, and generally my students aren’t performing quite as wel do choose to use laptops, and higher performing students do not, so consistent with your more serious study, for sure.

John: And another thing I’ve been noticing a lot is that for quite a while, I’ve been walking around quite a bit, but I’ve also noted that the students in the front third or so of the class tend to be very actively engaged in answering questions, and they tend to do really well, and they tend to ask more questions. But when I’m in the back of the room, I see a lot of laptops where there perhaps may be a video playing, there may be some online shopping going on, or there may be some sort of video game that they’re working on on the mobile device and their laptop or one or the other. And I think we often do see that sort of sorting in terms of the way in which students choose to work. I’m not sure how I could get rid of that effect, other than moving them all up to the front.

Rebecca: it does seem like at least the multi taskers, in quotes, are at least removing themselves, and because they’re probably distracting to other people, they’re just moving themselves to the back so they’re not a distraction to the people who are trying to focus.

John: Except they’re surrounded by other people, and there may be a bit of a contagion effect going on back there.

Bill: I’ve seen papers on the contagion effect, yes. There was a Carl Wieman paper. They did look at seating in large classrooms and found a very definite effect. They even switched seats halfway through the semester to bring the people in the back up to the front, and they still did worse.

John: Some of our students are just much more interested in the material and much more engaged than others, and there’s just so much we can do with that.

Bill: It’s tough, but I would be a little bit sympathetic to students. It’s been a long time since I’ve had to sit through a typical undergraduate today, and you know, you’re three, maybe four courses a day, a lot of sitting. That would be tough, a challenge. There’s a book called My Freshman Year, and there’s a field anthropologist who went to college for a year to understand her students better, and she found it was harder than she thought.

John: And she found some dramatic differences, too, in the way in which students connected with each other from when she had been a student, that they had much tighter networks with the people they knew before they came to college, because it’s less costly to connect with them over social media and so forth.

Bill: Yeah, friendships have changed with the rise of social media.

John: It used to be costly. I remember having to bring all these quarters to put in pay phones back when I was in school.

Rebecca: You mean, in those 1900s phones that my daughter refers to, John?

John: Yes, I think that would be the case.

Bill: What’s a quarter?

Rebecca: Yeah. [LAUGHTER] Well, I think we still know what quarters are. We just don’t know what pennies are anymore. [LAUGHTER]

Bill: Well, that could be, yes. [LAUGHTER]

John: Are there any other things you’d like to share about this study?

Bill: Well, I think that’s pretty much it. I think I would emphasize this little bit more about, again, developing student schemas. But we talked about that earlier today, this broad network, and it’s through connections, and this helps them make connections more focused on whatever the topic might be at hand. So I think negative examples could be used for teaching most anything.

Rebecca: Including our colleagues when we’re doing professional development and all kinds of other contexts.

Bill: Yes. [LAUGHTER]

John: And it’s easy for us to lose focus, because we already can distinguish these things more easily, and students have not yet developed that capability.

Bill: The curse of knowledge really reigns here, where you know it well. It’s hard to understand how other people don’t. I was doing a think aloud exercise the end of last semester where I interviewed students half the semester in how they’d interpret different things. And I spent a lot of time on aggregate supply, aggregate demand model in my course, standard staple things course, asked about certain phenomena, no one actually used the model. I was only interviewing four students, so, I mean, it’s not much power there, but it was kind of crushing, but it gave me insights on how they think about things.

John: In an earlier podcast with Doug McKee, he talked about having students come in and just work through the problems verbally, so he could see what sort of process they were using, and by seeing that, it was easier to help guide them in a more productive direction. Because if we don’t really understand how students are processing things, it’s hard to help them understand things more deeply.

Rebecca: Yeah, we use that talk-aloud method and design a lot too around troubleshooting, because troubleshooting strategies require, especially around technical skills, you need to think about problems in particular kinds of ways to be able to solve them correctly, or to be able to solve them at all, [LAUGHTER] and doing that kind of talk aloud strategy works really well for figuring out where something went awry in the troubleshooting.

Bill: And experts think a lot differently than students, I would suspect. You would never think someone thought that way.

John: And fMRI studies confirm that different areas of the brain are activated for experts and for novices when trying to solve a problem. So it’s easier when you become an expert, but we have to help students develop the skills to get there. While we’ve got you here, could you also tell us a little bit about how you teach classes so large with so many students, every semester.

Bill: I use Perusall as a way to have them read ahead. They come into class, they have some sense of things and then a lot of clicker questions, typically, as long as it’s not something new. For example, I was doing long-run growth. I do that a fair amount, and the book doesn’t really talk much about the institutions and the role of markets in that. So that was a day or two of me talking. I’m going to be doing the business cycle starting tomorrow, and that’s a fair amount of me talking. But other than that, it’s them pretty much asking questions, or me asking questions. Probably on Thursday, we’ll get to calculate employment rates like read about that in Perusall. I’ll ask them, “Who in this group of people is unemployed?” Then I’ll show them some data, what we compute from that data. So it’s a lot of using ideas. I do a lot of peer instruction where they first do votes on their own, and then I say, “Okay, there’s a lot of uncertainty here. Please convince your neighbors.” And I use an app by iClicker, so I can see their votes on my phone, and then they do a revote, and they usually improve 20, maybe 30 points, then I provide further instruction on the topic at hand. And there’s a couple papers I’ve seen. Let’s see Michelle Smith at Cornell, a computer science paper. They found that if you have students revote, that helps them; if you have a further explanation from the instructor that helps them; if you both, it helps them even more, and it’s probably enriching their schemas, they’re seeing several explanations that reinforce the connections between things. Also I do a series of quizzes, rather than midterms. I do seven quizzes. We’re very fortunate at Penn State, we have a testing center, so I send all my students there for testing. So I run the quizzes for two days, after the quiz they do a second stage of the quiz. In class they start, then they answer at home using any resource, and finally I release the answers, and then they reflect on and describe what they found most difficult on that quiz. So we do a two-week cycle. There’s a lot of feedback, even though the course is quite large, with about 1000 students a semester.

John: So having that testing center gives you a bit more security in the assessments than many of us have when we give quizzes online. Many of the assessments I use are done online, and I used to feel a whole lot better about them before we had ChatGPT and other AI tools appear, especially with some of the browser extensions, which will directly answer things, so you’re able to avoid some of that, which is really nice.

Bill: I really feel very fortunate, yes. I would add, it’s a good thing that the AI tools came after Covid, rather than before.

Rebecca: So one of the things that you mentioned when you’re describing your class was Perusall. Can you describe what that is for people that don’t know?

Bill: Oh, yes. An e-text goes inside perusal, and then students mark it up with comments, questions, and responses to other people’s questions. So it has them thinking bit about the text. It grades them automatically. They need to start early so there’s a little bit of spacing there. They need to make sure they document across the assignment, and they’re also rewarded for opening up multiple times, not just the evening before the exam. And it’s fairly straightforward. Most students get full credit on each assignment. So it’s a bit of encouragement there to read ahead. I used to use so called JITs for just-in-time teaching assignments where I’d ask some questions, including what they found confusing, but I like Perusall better. It’s less grading work, and also, I think it covers a little bit more topics or not just looking at the answers to my JIT questions.

John: Now, do you break them up into groups when they’re using Perusall?

Bill: Yes, Perusall actually does that. When I look at the marked up text from 1000 students, the page does not load basically, or has difficulty loading. And you can also download, I’ve not done this, you could download all their comments, and you can run through a chatbot or whatever to get a sense of what they have trouble with, or what they find confusing. I think textbook authors would find that really, really useful. You could say your textbook was designed with the input from 1000s of students, and so your students can read this more carefully. I’ve not found an author willing to do that, but I think that would be a big win for someone.

John: It could be, and from a marketing standpoint, that could be really helpful. When iClicker announced that they had AI tools being built in, I was really hoping that they would integrate that into the text responses, because right now, it’s just generating questions, which is not bad, and it doesn’t do a really bad job of that, but it would be so nice when you got maybe 1000 or more responses coming in, or a few 1000 responses, if it could very quickly generate a summary of the responses to free-response questions. That seems like something that wouldn’t be all that hard to do, and it would be a nice extension.

Bill: I agree. I think there’s some polling technologies that do that. For some reason iClicker doesn’t. I wonder if there’s a legal issue or some other constraint. I would love to see that as well so I’m not just asking five different possibilities.

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

Bill: So I want to do more work on active learning, the ideas from deliberate practice. Does it make a difference if students have good sub skills. And does it make a difference if you teach by making connections between different topics? There’s many ways active learning are implemented. And it would be cool to do a study where you look at active learning in many different implementations, but some get those interventions, some do not, in a crossover study, of course. So that’s what I would like to work on next a bit.

John: That sounds like a very productive area of research that could really be helpful for all disciplines.

Bill: Yes, well thank you. That’s the idea, I think, a bit about marketing of papers, you know, who would find it interesting, and so forth.

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to your future research.

Bill: Thank you so much. It was great fun.

John: It’s great talking to you, Bill, always. I’ve learned a lot from you over the years, and it’s great to still be able to see your work out there in various places.

Bill: Great. Okay. Thanks so much, John. It’s great to connect up again.

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: Editing assistance provided by Ryan Metzler.

[MUSIC]

407. Covering or Teaching

New faculty often begin their teaching careers by emulating the teaching methods that they have observed, but these practices are often not consistent with evidence on how students learn. In this episode, Chris Hakala joins us to discuss the role that educational developers can play in shifting faculty focus from presenting to teaching.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: New faculty often begin their teaching careers by emulating the teaching methods that they have observed, but these practices are often not consistent with evidence on how students learn. In this episode, we discuss the role that educational developers can play in shifting faculty focus from presenting to 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]

John: Our guest today is Chris Hakala. Chris is a professor of psychology and is the Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship at Springfield College. He is the author or co-author of numerous books and articles on the science of learning, assessing learning, large-class instruction, and on teaching centers. His most recent work, co-authored with Leslie D. Cramblet Alvarez is Understanding Educational Developers: Tales from the Center, released in late December 2024. Welcome Chris.

Chris: Well, thanks. Thanks for having me. I’m really excited to be here and have this conversation with the two of you. So I appreciate it.

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

Chris: So this is an interesting thing. I’m routinely a coffee drinker. However, my wife and I every morning get up in the morning and we share time together. We actually have a station in our bedroom where we make coffee and tea. And so in honor of my wife and the tea, I’m drinking her tea, which is a Zen green tea, which I will sometimes drink as well. So yes, I’m having Zen green tea this afternoon.

Rebecca: Excellent. Thanks for ditching the coffee for us.

Chris: Happy to do so, happy to do so. I’ve had enough of it already today.

John: And I am drinking a spring cherry green tea, even though it’s late summer here in Oswego.

Rebecca: It does feel more like a spring day today, though, after being so hot for so many days. I have a weird mix of random black teas because I was cleaning out my tea cupboard, [LAUGHTER] so it’s an eclectic mix.

Chris: Whatever gets you through the day, right?

John: I imagine no cherry teas, though.

Rebecca: No, they are black teas without any weird flavors, John.

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss the relationship between pedagogical practice and what research tells us about how students learn. First, though, could you tell us a little bit about your path to becoming an educational developer.

Chris: Sure, it’s an interesting path that actually we talk about a little bit in the book, but one of the things that is fascinating to me about this field of educational development is it’s not a field people often go directly into out of college. And so I went to college in Vermont, at a small school in Vermont, went to grad school, and in grad school, I earned a PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of New Hampshire. And I know we’re going to talk about this a little bit more later, but I just want to point out that during that time, we had a course in a seminar in practicum and teaching of psychology, and that course was taught by a faculty member named Victor Banassi, who was doing teaching center work at that time. So it was the first time I began to hear about educational development. It was back in the mid 90s, and so I thought it was kind of interesting, but I went on, I became a faculty member, I received tenure, and then as I was working through my career, I began to notice that many schools had teaching centers. Many schools had the opportunity for faculty to talk to other faculty about what they’re doing and to share ideas. And so I approached our Provost and asked him if we could start a teaching center. And he said, “No, there’s not enough money.” And so I approached him again, and he said, “No, we don’t have enough money.” And finally, I was able to steal an idea from Todd Zakrajsek, who is a name you are probably aware, and Todd recommended me just buying coffee mugs that said Center on it. So I did. I bought coffee mugs that said Center for Teaching and Learning, and I had them branded, and then I handed them out and gave one to the President, and the President said, “Do we have a teaching center?” And the Provost said, “Well, I guess so.” And so they gave me a little bit of money, and so I had this very small teaching center. I would do a little bit for faculty orientation, I’d run some workshops, and it became really interesting for me to see how sharing ideas with faculty about teaching and hearing what they’re saying and what they’re doing and what they’re experiencing with their students was a really wonderful way to engage with my colleagues, to go across disciplines and to really sort of work to improve our students’ learning. So I left there and became a full-time center director in 2014, and I’ve have been doing that ever since. It’s been an interesting process, because as we were speaking off-mic, in 2020 our world changed dramatically, and teaching centers became very important. And it was a really interesting time to see all that work ramp up. And I think now we’re in a different sort of era of teaching centers, as people began to realize the value of educational development when they needed us. Yeah, so it’s been an interesting journey.

Rebecca: I see some sales of teaching center mugs going up [LAUGHTER] with the sneaky strategies for starting teaching centers, moving forward. [LAUGHTER]

Chris: That’s all Todd. It’s all Todd.

Rebecca: He’s always good for a good idea.

Chris: He is good for a good idea.

Rebecca: Most faculty begin their teaching careers without the kind of training that you mentioned that you had as part of your graduate program in evidence-based teaching practices and kind of rely on what they experienced with their own instructors. What are some of the disconnects between learning science and pedagogical practices?

Chris: So it’s a great question. It was really interesting. I’m gonna go back to go back to my experience and sort of talk through that, because I think it’s a great question. I went into my first experience teaching in 1992… by the way, I still have a video of it. I had spectacular hair. It was wavy and flowy… and I went in with this idea that I was now the disseminator of knowledge. I was going to share what I knew with these students, and I did what I had experienced the faculty that I admired do. I lectured. I had an overhead projector, I wrote on the board, and my students were doing the tasks I was asking them to do. They were studying. They were doing well on quizzes and all of that. But what became really apparent to me over time was student learning is not as simple as they just remember things, because there’s more value in students taking what we teach them and expanding that out to other concepts. And so I began to think about it in lots of different ways, and my teaching now looks very different. One of the things that becomes problematic, though, is, as you brought up, Rebecca, many faculty end up in a teaching experience without having any kind of guidance or support. They have very little in the way of reflective teaching, and they think their job is to just share what they know with their students. I hear “covering content” so much from faculty with this idea that they have to make sure they say everything. And I think that helping faculty understand that the magic words coming out of your mouth doesn’t mean a student learns it is a really important thing. And one of the distinctions I draw up with my faculty all the time is this distinction between presenting and teaching. And so I think a lot of faculty are good at presenting, but they haven’t really thought through teaching. And so a lot of times I spend time working with our faculty to talk to them about who they are and what they bring to the table as an instructor, who their students are and how they can begin to find what is going to leverage what we know about student learning in the classroom in the context of who they are and who their students are. So for example, I tend to be pretty expressive in class. I tend to move around a lot. I tend to do lots of interactive things, but that’s also part of who I am. You don’t have to be that to be successful. You can be lots of ways in the classroom, but it’s a matter of understanding that the processes I’m engaged in are to help students focus attention, to help engage them, to draw them in with different anecdotes and stories, to try to tie those things together, and then have them reflect it back to me so we can work through that. People have different approaches, but you have to sort of to be aware of that and know that the student learning is essential. The key to student learning is that they do the work. It’s not that you’re doing all of the work. They’re doing the work. And so you have to help faculty sort of navigate that. And it is fortunate for me. I’m at a small college where teaching is really emphasized and faculty care about it, that I get to work with wonderful people and help them understand some of the things that we know about human learning, and help them sort of integrate that into their classes.

John: And we have lots of faculty who are very interested in improving their teaching, and we also are a teaching focused institution, but there are some faculty who are a little reluctant to change their practices, or consider changing their practices. What are some strategies that you’ve used to help reach out to those faculty who may not see the benefits of changing the way in which they’re teaching.

Chris: Yeah, the recalcitrant faculty problem. It’s a big one. I have had a mixed success. When I arrived on campus, I was fortunate to have someone here who handed me a list of people. On one side was “these people will come to everything you offer. Don’t worry about it. You could roll out a boring thing, they’ll show up.” “These people would come if it’s interesting.” “These people will never darken your door.” And so I went right after the people who would never darken my door and went and had a conversation with them about their teaching. Now, this doesn’t scale up to a big institution because there’s too many people, but in a small institution, it was really effective for me to go talk to faculty, find out what it was they were doing in the classroom, ask them if they were happy with it, and start to look at things in their classes they might want to work on. Now, again, you scale it up to a big institution, you start with departments and ask the department, “what would you like support with?” But one of the things that’s been really helpful for me as a center director is showing faculty things that they can implement, that they can see the impact on, and it’s been simple things. One of the things that our faculty in our health science really like is that I taught them about retrieval practice. They had not really thought about retrieval practice, and so now they’re using tools, including some AI, to build out many little quizzes the students can take on their own that seem to be benefiting the students’ ability to do well on these very high-stakes exams. So it’s a matter of finding the niche where the faculty member’s issue and your expertise can come together. I also strongly, strongly encourage faculty to watch each other teach, which is a really interesting thing. I have an open-door policy. Faculty can show up in my class anytime. It doesn’t matter when, they don’t have to tell me, they can just come. And I have 5 to 10 faculty a semester show up in my class and they just are there, and we talk, and then I go to lots of other faculty members’ classes, and we have an open-door week where we open up classes for faculty to go to each other’s classes. I think that’s really helpful for people to see lots of different ways of doing things. I have a line that my associate director always gets annoyed with when I say, but I believe this. I have faculty who say to me, “Chris, I’ve heard that if you’re funny, students really like it.” And I say “that’s true, but only if you’re really funny. If you’re not funny, it’s terrible.” And I’ve seen faculty try to be funny and they’re not and it fails. So one of the big messages is, “lean into who you are.” It’s okay if you’re a bit of a dork. I love statistics. My students, I get them on board eventually, but I come in with the enthusiasm of someone who loves statistics. So it’s a challenge, and we’re humans. So John, you know, humans don’t always respond well, when you say, “we can help you do something better.” So there’s a lot of nuance to it. I will say teaching centers should never be where bad teachers are sent. I push back against it.

John: We do too.

Rebecca: I think one of the things that’s interesting about teaching centers, and what you said about faculty not having support, is that actually a lot of institutions have teaching centers, so there is the availability of support, but getting said support is not built into requirements or time is not necessarily allocated by the institution to participate in teaching center things. It’s voluntary. It feels extra sometimes. So you talked about your list and individually reaching out to folks. But what are some other strategies to get over this hurdle of helping folks realize that this is a good investment of their time.

Chris: We have some events that are campus wide, and we use these events as a way to try to promote options of how you can interact with the center. So to just give you a couple of examples. Our President is incredibly supportive of the center, so twice a year, we host an evening event at the president’s house, it has wine, that goes over well, and we bring in speakers, and we try to get speakers who will hit a variety of different areas of interest for faculty. And we often will get faculty at those events that don’t come to anything else, but then may come to other events, as they’ve seen the value in those events. So that’s been a good one. Diversity of programming has been really helpful, and I’m super proud of this. We run a summer conference. It’s a week after commencement, all faculty are off contract, and we will get roughly 40 to 50% of the full-time faculty showing up at our Summer Conference off-contract because we structure it in such a way that faculty are talking to each other. We’ve been very fortunate having some really, really amazing outside speakers, and then we give faculty the opportunity to do some chatting with their colleagues, get to see people that they don’t normally see, and that’s been another way. Part of it is having a big footprint on campus, Rebecca, and being involved in lots of things. I go to department meetings once a year. My associate director goes to department meetings. But I will say this, our office also has this footprint, because we not only oversee educational development, we oversee all of instructional design, we oversee all online course builds. We also oversee all student research. We also oversee the IRB. We also oversee sponsored research with our staff of two. So it’s hard to have something on campus that doesn’t involve reaching out to one of us once in a while, and that’s been really helpful. But it is, it’s challenging, because those resources are there and they’re often not used as much as they could be.

Rebecca: I think it’s important to ask how you went from a mug to overseeing that many things.

Chris: I switched schools, that helped, and then… I said this to John… this is 33 years of me being in higher ed, and you learn a lot when you’re just around in higher ed. And I’ve been tenured full professor for a long time, and I still teach, and that actually buys me credibility among the faculty, but I also manage budgets, that buys me credibility among the administrators. So that’s all been really helpful. It’s a needle you have to thread sometimes, and teaching centers are interesting because if you look at it, I mentioned before how we were able to show the utility of teaching centers. But as budgets get tighter and things begin to change across the landscape of higher ed, you’re starting to see teaching centers get shrunk and cut again. I know of at least two teaching centers at major institutions that were simply cut and all the people were fired because of budgetary crises. And I’m actually down four staff members right now, which I may or may not get back. So it is a very difficult time financially, and you work for a state system, so you know what that’s like. You look at the state budget. We were private. Stuff just happens in a private institution. It just happens. It’s not easy.

John: One of the things we found has been helpful to reaching out to more faculty is getting faculty who were in that wave of people who were interested in attending more workshops, having them do things and then present on it to other faculty, because the more faculty hear from their peers about how things have worked and made their classes more enjoyable, the more likely they are to show up and to try these things as well. There’s still some areas, though, that it’s difficult to reach and we keep trying.

Chris: Yeah, John, it’s a great concept you’re talking about, and that’s the Summer Conference. I do nothing at the summer conference but serve food. I simply show up and all my colleagues talk to each other. And that’s really the joy of it, because they see other people, and we have a SOTL fellowship program, and so they’ll present their scholarship of teaching and learning work, and the opportunity to do that is often gonna draw people in. It really is a grassroots thing. And one of the interesting things that Leslie and I saw when we were working on this book is that there’s no one way to run a center. It’s deeply contextualized into the context of the institution and the structure and culture of the institution. And some places have had a long culture and a long history. I was the first full time director at my place here, and by the way. I didn’t say this before, but we’re Springfield, Massachusetts. I know there’s Springfields in every state, and I feel like I’m contractually obliged to say, if you know anything about Springfield College in Massachusetts, we are the home of basketball. Kansas wants to claim it, but we are where basketball was invented, so I just have to say that. My president will be proud if she hears this.

Rebecca: These are important details.

Chris: These are important details.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit more about how teaching centers can continue to help faculty align their practices so that we’re really teaching students how to learn and building that into the work that we’re doing, and help faculty see value in spending some time or allocating time in their classes to that kind of work.

Chris: Sure, the change in teaching practices over the last 30, 40, years has been pretty remarkable, and a lot of it has to do with the changing demographics of students entering college and the changing demographics of people teaching them. And what we’ve learned as we’ve looked at the science of learning is that human learning hasn’t shifted as much, but there are other outside variables. And I like to talk about, with faculty as we discuss these things, the notion that a student is going to walk into your class, any given student with a number of variables that are impacting what they’re doing in the classroom. Some of them you have some control over. Many of them you don’t. One of the things that you can help them with is a simple concept, such as attention. And I always start with attention, because it’s the one that faculty can begin to sort of wrap their head around. And I say you can help by using the classroom space in a way that is not going to cause them to have other distracting variables pull them away. And then I get the same comment, “well, students’ attention spans have changed.” And my response always is, “Nope, hasn’t. Hasn’t changed at all. What has changed is how many things they can be distracted by.” So you have some control over that. What are you going to do about that? And so it’s a way in, and then I can talk to them about… and because I’m a practitioner who does this research too… I can talk about data. Now, by the way, the data always get the bench scientists. They love that, because I’m talking about we have results that show this. Here’s the data, here’s the results, here’s the interpretation of the results. And things like I mentioned, retrieval practice, things like interleaving, or worked problems, the data are pretty strong that these kinds of procedures are effective. Now what is really, for me, the joy is working with a faculty member to see how that particular process works within their class, with their content, with what they’re trying to do, and try to really personalize it to their approach. One of the ones that my faculty seem to really like is this notion of interteaching. It’s a way to help students sort of structure their reading and so students get questions before they read, and they answer the questions, but they come in with two copies. One copy goes to you, one they sit and they discuss with a partner, and they look at where they answered the questions the same way, they answered them differently. They talk about it, and then everyone comes back together and talks about it. It seems like they’re going to not say much to each other, but they actually get pretty competitive about who said what on these things. But the real joy is not that they get it right or wrong, but it’s rather that they’ve thought through these things and now they’re engaging with the concepts in a different context. And I always talk to faculty about the key is to get the students to not just hear it, but to do something with it, to engage with it. And so how you structure that is the most important piece in terms of that they’re doing it, but how you do it is going to vary. So I think that that’s where I get some buy in. But I will say, Rebecca, it causes people to have to change their classes and they don’t like it, because you have your slides and you have your presentation, and you know what you’re going to do, and this opens up the probability, and I say, probability, not possibility, that class is going to be derailed sometimes. That’s okay. I love to tell faculty I teach two sections of intro sometimes back to back, one at eight and one at nine. I might be two chapters apart in those two classes because they’re going at different rates, and I’m okay with that.

John: So you encourage faculty to build in some forms of retrieval practice and interleaved practice, spaced practice and so forth. But sometimes students react poorly when you build that into your courses. Do you have any strategies you share with faculty in terms of getting buy-in from students? Because students, in general, in a number of studies, prefer to be lectured at, but we do know they learn more when they use evidence-based strategies. How can we get students to buy into that?

Chris: I’m going to tell a story while I talk about this. Part of it is being incredibly transparent about why students should be doing these kinds of things. And I think that’s pretty obvious, but I’m gonna tell you a story. I did this study at a different institution, and we never published it. We had two sections of neuroscience, and they both had 60 students. So we had 120 students total. And for the students, for exam one, the students were told in class A, we’re going to teach you how to concept map for studying. So we taught them how to concept map. Class B, study however you want. For exam two, we flipped it and we flipped it all the way through, and what the students found was when they concept mapped, they tended to do better than the other class, and then on their next exam, they did better when they concept mapped then when they didn’t concept map and we showed them the data. We showed them students tend to do better. For the final exam, we told the students, “Pick whatever you want. It doesn’t matter. You study however you want. We’re done with the study. Just study however you want.” They took the exams, and then we just asked them, “What approach did you take?” And the idea was, many of these students would adopt concept mapping, because it worked. Well, much to our chagrin, the number was so low that it was actually zero. None of them concept mapped. They all said, “I know it looked like it worked there, but my way is better.” So you’re absolutely right, John, it’s really difficult sometimes to convince people of these things. The approach I tell faculty to do is to introduce these things slowly into your classes, to build up and get small gains. So I’m a firm believer in formative assessment at various times throughout the semester, including my intro psych class, we do an assessment every class. It’s simple. It takes a minute or two, but it’s a way for me to gauge where they are. And I share the results with the students, and I talk to them about why the results might look the way they look, and I talk to my fellow colleagues about how to try to incorporate that in terms of how they’re doing it. The students, they do not like when you do retrieval practice in class, yet, if you give them the opportunity to build a Quizlet outside of class, they’re all over it, which is really retrieval practice. And so it’s a matter of trying to have that conversation. And it’s one of those things about human behavior, and you’re an economist, you know this. It’s so frustrating. People don’t do things that are good for them sometimes, and it’s frustrating, but you just keep working at it in a variety of ways. I know we’ve had success by hosting student faculty conversations, where the students and the faculty will talk to each other about what is going on in class, and it helps the students understand why the faculty members do things. It helps the faculty understand why students do things. But at the end of the day, it’s incredibly challenging, and I think it’s one of the things that makes this work. We’re going to be around for a while, because we really need to continue to work. And I will say one more thing, it also doesn’t help that faculty are incredibly resistant. And they’re resistant because you try something, the students don’t like it, you back off of it because the students don’t like it, even though it might take two or three iterations for them to like it. So there’s a lot of challenges there.

John: And we’re also coming up against students who’ve had 12 to 13 years of practice before entering college without using those techniques with high stakes exams and so forth. So there’s a lot to overcome there.

Chris: Yeah, and the high-stakes exam thing, we have a large group of physical therapists, physicians assistants, and OTs (occupational therapists), and they all have this national exam they have to sit for. And so they just want the stuff. They just want to know stuff. And I always try to tell them, you could know a lot, but you have a patient in front of you, and this is the example I give. I say, “If a patient comes to you and says, ‘My arm hurts when I bend it up’ and you say, ‘Okay, here’s what you’re gonna do. You’re gonna do this.’ And then the patient comes back says, ‘I did that and it doesn’t help.’ You can’t look at the patient and say, ‘Well, boy, that’s terrible.’” You have to have another approach. You have to have something else to try. And I try to help them sort of work through that. Again, we’re fortunate here. I do go in and talk to almost all the grad students when they go from undergrad to grad, to talk about the application of knowledge. I also talk to all the undergraduates when they show up on campus to talk about some of these things too, with the idea that if we repeatedly talk to students about it and try to help show them, we may get more buy-in. There’s no panacea to this.

Rebecca: I think what you’ve both highlighted is that there’s resistance on both sides. There’s resistance from students and resistance from faculty, because change requires effort, and establishing new habits takes time and effort. But I like the idea of the dialoguing so that you’re working on change from both directions.

Chris: Yeah, and it’s interesting, I always ask faculty, especially like, if they give an assignment and say, “Why did you give that assignment?” And I’ll sometimes hear, “Well, it was time.” Well, that’s not a good enough answer. If you can’t relate that back to what you’re trying to get students to learn, then the students don’t know why they’re doing it, and they’re just doing it, which is the big issue with AI right now, is faculty are like, “Why are students AI-ing my assignments?” They see zero value. You work towards things that you value. You create value in education, students are more likely to work. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s more likely they’re going to do the work.

John: Earlier you suggested that one strategy you encourage is transparency, so that students understand why you’re asking them to do these things. Might that help in getting students to break the habits they’re developing of using AI for so many assignments now.

Chris: Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about this. I’ve done quite a bit of work in the AI field, working with AAC&U as well as with the American Psychological Association. And I think that the transparency with AI, we just have to do it at this point. What we need to do is lean into teaching AI literacy, teaching students about what AI can do, the limits of AI, showing them some of the limits of AI, and allowing them to see this as a tool, not as learning, but as a tool to help them learn more effectively. John, you were teaching at the time. I remember in 1995 we got essentially a graphic browser called Mosaic, and I could actually see the internet versus just typing things into gopher. And I thought my life has just gotten better. It’s just gotten better, and I was able to do things I couldn’t do before. Well, AI has done the same thing. I can’t tell you how many times n ow, when I’m generating a data set for statistics, I give it the parameters, and it just generates the data for me and it comes out the way I want it to. I used to calculate those numbers, and it was terribly difficult to do. Now it just does it, and that takes the time from that for me to give students feedback or do other things. Well, the students, just like with the calculator, can use it in a way, and I’m not saying it’s a calculator. It’s much different than that. I’m not saying that, but it’s a tool that we can use, if we can figure out how to leverage it. But transparency is key. We are talking right now about creating a guidance document through the center that’s going to be shared with faculty and students about how the center and how academic affairs views AI and the value of it, as well as some of the pitfalls and concerns and some of the caveats that need to be around it. Because I think, even if you hate it, and we have faculty who truly hate it, they truly hate it, it’s not going anywhere, and the students have access to it on their phones. It’s there, so we have to figure out what to do with it.

Rebecca: One of the things I want to underscore about what you just said is that you’re going to develop a guide for faculty and students and that you’re going to share it to both parties. And I think that’s a practice that institutions could just do more generally, so that both sets of individuals are getting the same information, because especially around AI like literacy is necessary for all members of the campus community, not just students.

Chris: Yeah, yeah. We have a task force right now we’re running with my associate director, which involves five staff members and five faculty, and we’re going to cycle in some students so that we can sort of figure out what we need to be talking to people about. Our staff, many of them are afraid to use it because they’re afraid that it’s going to work them out of a job. But we say “No, this is gonna make your lives better if you use this.” So we’re trying to work through some of that. But the transparency is really key. I would argue that for everything, Rebecca. I’m a firm believer in being incredibly transparent with my students about all sorts of things that I think help move the learning process along, and that’s been really valuable for me as an educator and with my colleagues as a faculty member, as an educational developer.

John: And one of the things we’ve been advocating is that faculty have these conversations at the start of the semester with their students about what uses of AI are appropriate to see if they can get some degree of buy in. Do you think that might be helpful in convincing students that they should use it in ways that support their learning, rather than ways that serve as shortcuts to their learning?

Chris: Yeah, my associate director, Matt Citron, developed a system for one of our majors because the faculty really wanted it. And it’s not a new system, people are using it, but they just have a system built into Brightspace where an assignment will have either red or green or yellow light saying: red, don’t use AI; yellow, use it with caution; green, do what you want with it. But even before they see that, there’s a whole conversation about what “use it with caution” or “go crazy with it” means, how you’re going to involve that, and what you’re going to do with it, and how you’re going to report what you got out of it to the instructor, so they know exactly where this is coming from and how it looks. Again, It’s a transparency. But, you know, I’ll say this, I am continuously amazed when faculty are trying to sneak things in and trick students, because learning is not about being tricked, man, it’s about being able to do things more effectively. And I even do this, and faculty don’t love this. But when I give multiple choice… I’d really moved away from it…but a few years back, when I gave multiple choice, I told students, look, if you don’t like my answers, give me your own. If I like it, I’ll give you points for it. Or if you think my answers aren’t good enough, and you could write it better, fine. Write it underneath the multiple choice, I’ll read it. I mean, students don’t often do it, but every once in a while they do. It’s not like I have the magic knowledge, that’s the thing. I just know more about this than you do. I’ve learned more, I can think about it differently than you can, but let’s talk about it. And I have conversations with students after exams. I have conversations with students about their papers. I’ve taken to shooting video feedback to all my students on assignments and their responsibility is to give me video feedback, telling me how they understood my feedback and what they intended to do with it. So it becomes this virtual conversation. I talked to my faculty about that. Teaching and learning is an innately humane relational process, and the more we can continue to build that in, the better off our students and our faculty are going to be. But Rebecca, it’s work. It’s work.

Rebecca: It is work.

Chris: It is. I have two classes. I have 67 students this upcoming semester, as well as running a teaching center. It’s a lot of work. I grew up as a first kid to go to college, first one to graduate. I feel pretty lucky to do this job. I’ve worked other jobs, man, I built fences. This is way better than building fences. This is way better than building fences.

Rebecca: Sounds like we’re trying to take them down, actually.

Chris: Yeah.

Rebecca: One of the things that we’re seeing with budget crises across higher ed is sometimes increases in class sizes, and you just talked about how deeply humane and relational [LAUGHTER] teaching and learning is. Do you have some strategies for student engagement and some of that relation building in those larger classes.

Chris: Yeah, it’s a great question, and it’s interesting because at Springfield, and I’m not sure about the size of Oswego, but for us, a big class is like 60 students. Faculty freak out when they hit 60. And the fact is, I think that relational piece is going to look different depending on the size of your class and how you’re able to navigate that. I think part of it is understanding a variety of ways to give feedback. So I tell faculty, in particular with large classes that I would encourage them to do small assignments and give feedback to percentages of students every class to ensure that every student gets written feedback across time, but they don’t have to get all the same written feedback every time. You would never not read a student’s work, but you would give more substantive written feedback to a percentage of your students, but work in ways to develop those kinds of touch points. It’s not always easy. Sometimes it involves using the LMS, sometimes it involves getting there early, but being aware that your students, if they identify you as a human, they’re much more likely to be kind to you. So it’s really a matter of trying to figure out a way to allow yourself to be perceived as a human in students’ eyes. That’s idiosyncratic to the instructor. My students know a lot about my life. Part of it was I was a single dad for six years. I taught with my kid in a Snuggie. There was no way for my students to not be aware of what I was doing. I had a child strapped to my chest. She fell asleep. I told my students, come closer. She’s sleeping. I can’t wake her up. So I’ve always been pretty transparent with my students about lots of things. It makes me human, and I think part of it is allowing the students to see that you’re human too at whatever level you’re comfortable, whatever level people are comfortable, some people are more private. I get that, but I think you have to allow that humanity to kind of show through. I’ll say one more thing about that. If nothing else, you went and got a degree in this discipline. Show your passion for your discipline. Let your passion for your discipline come through however it does for you. I can’t talk about some psych topics without being jazzed. I’m a psycholinguist by training. I can’t talk about language without being super excited about language. It’s fun. I was just in Europe. I was looking at things written 1000 years ago. My camera is filled with pictures of stone tablets. My wife’s like, “What is this?” I said, trust me, “That’s linear B, man, that’s good stuff, right there.”

John: One of the issues that we do hear a lot of concerns from, especially since the pandemic, although it seems to be a little bit less last year than in the previous years, is students seem a little bit less engaged with some of their classwork, that students are more likely just to blow off some assignments and not complete them. And also, many faculty complain about having lower attendance in their classes. You mentioned using polling as a strategy. Are there other strategies that faculty can use to help increase that connection, or to get students a bit more engaged so they don’t disappear on us.

Chris: Yeah. I mean, the mental health crisis has really had its fingers in lots of this, and students’ anxiety has led them to be less willing to chat in class, less willing to engage in class, and with the devices they get to class, and they used to talk to each other, they sort of look at their phones, and so that’s an issue. I am pretty transparent about what I expect my students to do, and I talk to faculty about stating your expectations clearly and being open to knowing that students are going to sometimes struggle with this. I’ve got a couple of simple little tips. So for example, I give this tip to faculty. Have students answer questions and just write them down on a note card without their name, and then they take their note card and they stand up and they walk around the room, they hand it to someone, they take theirs, and then they take that note that note card and hand it to someone else, and then they take that, and then they just pass them around. And then I can call on any student, and all they’re doing is reading the note card, and so that helps them sort of see that it’s okay. I’ll tell you another secret… my students, whenever they find out about this… they get really mad, but I do this. I collect note cards at the beginning of the semester with all my students’ names on it, and I tell them, sometimes I’m going to randomly call on them to see if they know an answer. And they’re always softball, simple, very easy questions. So I’ll shuffle the cards and call someone. I will almost always call a name that is not on the card. I’ll call the name of the student who I know hasn’t said much, but knows what’s going on. So they have a chance to do something in class, be successful, and shine, and then they’re more likely to talk. And students don’t know what name I draw off the card. It doesn’t matter to me. It could be blank cards for all they know, but it’s a way to get the students… and again, as a psychologist, I look for ways to sort of shape that behavior up. Also, I tell faculty: “Get the class early, greet students when they come in, just talk to them.” I don’t know if this happens at Oswego, but this is a Springfield College thing. Our students thank us. At the end of every class, I get fist bumps as my students are walking by after every class. And I’m not unique. Lots of our students do that, and part of it is a culture that has built up over campus, over time, this is before my time. This is sort of who our students are. And so you work with that culture, okay, if the students are gonna do that, then I know they’re polite. Okay, good. Then I can work with that. Your students might be different. You know what they are. You try to work with that. It’s like I say to people all the time when faculty say, “Well, what can I do to be a better teacher?” I can’t pull a book off the shelf and say, “Here, do this.” I have to know who you are, who your students are, and all of that. And so it’s why the field is so much fun. I get to know lots of faculty, and I get to work with lots of faculty.

Rebecca: One of the things that we’ve been talking a little bit about, are some budget cuts in higher ed and teaching centers being on the chopping block? What are some of the things that you’re concerned about in this space?

Chris: So you don’t want to open that door too much. I really appreciate this in part, because I think there is a sense with teaching centers right now that if we let them go, we’re going to be okay. And I think faculty need the resource, even if it’s a perceived resource. My wife and I talk about it all the time. Perceived help is often as useful as the help you get, and so us existing is really important, and I worry that teaching centers are going to start to shrink, and it’s going to make faculty struggle in their teaching. So I hope that we continue to talk about these things and I appreciate having the opportunity to talk about it.

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

Chris: So what’s next for me? I have an idea for another writing project. I want to look at intentional teaching. I want to talk about barriers that make it difficult for faculty to be as effective as they can be in the classroom, starting with things like lack of pedagogical understanding and going through variables such as student variables, classroom size, physical space, etc. Because I think we need to take a harder look at what we are doing, knowing the stakes are higher than ever at being able to be effective at what we do. We need to be incredibly intentional about creating really strong learning environments for our students to succeed. And I think our livelihood depends on it. Listen, I teach at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast, and have either you ever been to Springfield, Massachusetts?

Rebecca: Yeah.

Chris: So from my office, if there were no trees, I could see two other colleges less than a mile away from me. So there’s lots of schools and fewer students. We just need to be really good at what we do. So I’m thinking about that. The other thing is, I am excited to be building out some additional resources for our faculty that I think are going to support them with short burst sort of faculty development that we’re building with our media team, which has been really fun. So we’ve got lots of stuff coming. We’re excited to get the year started and to do these things and to share them out. I’ve lots of ideas.

John: Well, thank you for talking to us. We very much appreciate the conversation and look forward to future conversations.

Chris: Yeah, thank you both so much, and I appreciate having this conversation. I know that you folks talk to lots of people. I went through, and I just have you know I run every day. You’ve gotten me through many runs, because your times is just about right, so I really appreciate that, and you’ve talked to some people that I have deep affection for. So I really appreciate being part of this, and thank you for all the work that you’re doing for teaching and learning. I think it’s super important for people to hear from these other people, so thanks.

Rebecca: Yeah, thank you. We’re looking forward to sharing out this episode with our audience, and we’re grateful for all the people that we’ve gotten to have on the show, you included.

John: And that’s why we keep doing it. [LAUGHTER]

[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]

272. Mind Over Monsters

During the last few years, college students have been reporting mental health concerns at unprecedented levels, straining the resources provided by college and university counseling centers. In this episode, Sarah Rose Cavanagh joins us to discuss the role that faculty can play in addressing these concerns.

Sarah is a psychologist, professor and Senior Associate Director for Teaching and Learning at Simmons University. She is the author of The Spark of Learning: Energizing the College Classroom with the Science of Emotion and Hivemind: Thinking Alike in a Divided World as well as numerous academic articles and essays in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Lit Hub, Inside Higher Ed, and Vice. Her most recent book, Mind Over Monsters: Supporting Youth Mental Health with Compassionate Challenge will be released in spring 2023.

Show Notes

  • Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The Spark of Learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. West Virginia University Press.
  • Cavanagh, S. R. (2019). Hivemind: The new science of tribalism in our divided world. Grand Central Publishing.
  • Cavanagh, S. R. (forthcoming, 2023). Mind Over Monsters: Supporting Youth Mental Health with Compassionate Challenge. Beacon Press.
  • Elizabeth Romero
  • Ryan Glode
  • Reacting to the Past
  • Jasmin Veerapen
  • Gary Senecal
  • Miller, L. (2020). Why Fish Don’t Exist: a story of loss, love, and the hidden order of life. Simon & Schuster.
  • Robert Sapolsky’s Publications
  • Auel, J. M. (2002). The Clan of the Cave Bear. Bantam.
  • Kelly Leonard
  • Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-Rich Education: How human connections drive success in college. JHU Press.
  • Viji Sathy and Kelly Hogan
  • Michele Lemons
  • James Lang

Transcript

John: During the last few years, college students have been reporting mental health concerns at unprecedented levels, straining the resources provided by college and university counseling centers. In this episode, we discuss the role that faculty can play in addressing these concerns.

[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 Sarah Rose Cavanagh. Sarah is a psychologist, professor and Senior Associate Director for Teaching and Learning at Simmons University. She is the author of The Spark of Learning: Energizing the College Classroom with the Science of Emotion and Hivemind: Thinking Alike in a Divided World as well as numerous academic articles and essays in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Lit Hub, Inside Higher Ed, and Vice. Her most recent book, Mind Over Monsters: Supporting Youth Mental Health with Compassionate Challenge will be released in spring 2023.

Welcome back, Sarah.

Sarah: Thank you. I’m delighted to be here.

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

Sarah: No, I always disappoint you. I am yet again drinking coffee.

Rebecca: Yet again, such a stable person in our lives with your coffee. [LAUGHTER] I have blue sapphire tea.

Sarah: That’s a pretty name.

Rebecca: Yeah, it’s tasty. And my new favorite.

John: And I am drinking spring cherry green tea here in the midst of winter in upstate New York. We’ve invited you here today to discuss Mind over Monsters. Could you talk a little bit about the origin of this project?

Sarah: For me, I think writing is more organic than it is planned, and so it felt a little bit like the book decided it needed to be written, rather than I decided to write the book. There was just such a groundswell of interest around young adult’s mental health, people talking about it, podcasts, books. And I am a college professor, I’m a psychologist, I am an educational developer. I’m the mom of an adolescent, and so I couldn’t help but be concerned and interested in this topic. And I also felt that, as someone who has struggled with anxiety my entire life, panic disorder in particular, that I had some small bits of wisdom from my lived experiences to share. And so it just all came together.

John: How prevalent are mental health issues among youth today?

Sarah: They’re pretty prevalent, unfortunately. Some people have even labeled it an epidemic. For instance, in 2021, three of the major American organizations dedicated to youth and adolescent mental health joined together and declared a national state of emergency, which was an unprecedented move. And they cited in particular the effects of the pandemic and the fact that already marginalized groups along lines of race and ethnicity, gender, and sexuality and income were bearing the brunt of the psychological effects of the pandemic. But also there’s a lot of complexities surrounding figuring out whether rates have truly changed or whether there’s also changes in stigma surrounding mental health, which are laudatory changes, we want people not to feel stigma, and to come out and reach out for treatment. There’s also changes in the thresholds of the diagnoses themselves, they shift every several years. And there’s also changes in people’s willingness to seek treatment, and also their decisions about the level at which they might need treatment. And so there’s some evidence that a lot of these complexities may be making epidemics seem worse than it is. But what is clear is that more young adults and especially college students are expressing more distress and asking for help with that distress. Counseling centers on campus are absolutely overwhelmed and students are expressing a lot of frustration with not receiving the level and the timing of care that they need in those settings, and so clearly, we need changes.

Rebecca: In a lot of public conversations, we’re hearing debates about needing to show compassion to adolescents who are struggling, but then also others who argue that youth is too coddled. Can you talk a little bit about what you would advocate for?

Sarah: And that’s a delightfully easy setup for me, [LAUGHTER] because in the subtitle of the book is “compassionate challenge and why we need to support youth mental health with compassionate challenge.” And I argue that this debate and tension between compassion and challenge is one of these false dichotomies that we human beings seem to adore. [LAUGHTER] Students clearly need compassion, and I think compassion has to come first. For me, what that looks like is establishing classroom communities and learning environments on campus that are characterized by safety and by a feeling of belongingness. You need to feel safe enough to take risks. And you need to feel that you’re supported not just by your instructor, but also your fellow students and the Student Success Office and all of the people on campus. But once we’ve established that grounding and that safe setting, then I think to truly learn and grow, we do need to take risks, we do need to step outside our comfort zones, and we need to be challenged. And I think that challenge can be very positive. I spend one of the last chapters of the book really digging into the science of play, and how play is all about being vulnerable and taking risks and play can be scary. And you can only play in settings where you, again, feel safe. And I think, finally, what I call compassionate challenge isn’t just important for teaching and learning. As I draw out in two interviews with clinical psychologists Ryan Glode and Elly Romero, compassionate challenge is also really key to addressing anxiety and symptoms of mental health. And I don’t think we’re going to be doing any therapy in the classroom, but learning environments marked by compassionate challenge are ones that are consistent with principles that help address and resolve anxiety, which again, involves facing your fears, and environments where you’re technically safe and there’s a facilitator there to help you manage those risks.

Rebecca: John and I were talking earlier about some of the things that I had observed in my own classroom in the last year with an increase in desire for perfection, like kind of perfectionism or anxiety around not being perfect and not being right and working with students in class and trying to find ways to help students work through that so that they could take risks or could show things in progress to get feedback so that they could continue to improve. Can you talk a little bit more about what that might look like in a classroom?

Sarah: Well, I think that a lot of that brings up assessment and grading. And I think why we see that perfectionism in the classroom is that students are very concerned about their grades, because they believe, to some extent rightly, that their grades are going to translate into future security, and to getting into the right graduate school or getting the right job. And we do this to students. In high school, we train them to be so focused on the grades in order to get into the correct college and I have a high schooler and her grades are constantly just streaming, coming in in real time to her phone. And then we’re surprised when students get to college and they’re too focused on their grades. [LAUGHTER] And so I think that helping students with that need for perfection is probably reforming our grading systems so that there isn’t that need, that that focus on perfectionism isn’t necessarily rewarded in the same way. And instead, we’re rewarding taking risks and doing something creative, and maybe failing and having multiple iterations of something and seeing that work can grow over time, which, I think, amplifies creativity

Rebecca: There’s a lot more focus on process than on the product, then.

Sarah: Yes.

John: You mentioned using play in classrooms, what would be an example of the use of play in the classroom?

Sarah: Well, I think you can directly play through using improv, and especially in the early parts of the semester when you’re all getting to know each other, a lot of icebreakers are very playful. And community building can be very playful. I think there are ways like the whole reacting to the past role playing approach in history. You can easily roleplay in literature classes. So I think you can directly play. I think that what play can also be is almost like a philosophy or a stance that you take, that what we’re doing in the classroom is not dire. And, related to the grading that we were just talking about, there aren’t large stakes, that what we’re doing here is this is kind of a sandbox, where we’re playing with intellectual ideas, we’re testing things out, we’re experimenting. And there’s a sense in which it’s lighthearted, even when the topics are not light hearted, I think that we can take this lighthearted stance with our students. And I think also mixing things up and not getting too into routines, can also be playful. And I feel like I have a lot of tricks in my teaching bag, different discussion techniques and ways of getting us up and moving and things like that. But there’s always a point, kind of through the three-quarter mark of the semester, where they’ve seen it all. And so I try to save one or two things for that point in the semester and kind of throw everything out the window and do something entirely different. And I think that that can be playful as well. And so I don’t think that play in the classroom is all about things that we think of as play proper, like improv and roleplay; it can also be all of these other techniques.

Rebecca: One of the things that I’ve studied in the past is play. And one of the things that’s interesting about play is that there’s rules and there’s structure. And so a lot of times we think that play is just chaos, but actually play almost always has rules. They might not be formal rules, they might be informal rules. But that’s a way that people can feel safe and able to play is that they understand what the structure is and what the rules are.

Sarah: Those are great points.

Rebecca: You think that it’s hard to facilitate because it might seem so foreign, but actually we’re all very familiar with play. And it is actually incredibly structured. We know that structured things can be really inclusive. And so you might be hesitant to try something that seems like it might be unstructured, but I think, lo and behold, play is actually structured.

Sarah: Yeah, and a lot of those classic improv activities have strict rules in fact and one of the rules is that there’s a kindness.So, even when animals play… you know, I watch dogs play a lot at dog parks, and it can get quite vicious looking, but the animals are safe, you don’t harm each other and that is a strict rule of play as well.

John: Some of this book is drawn from research you conducted as part of the Student Voices project. Could you tell us a little bit about that project?

Sarah: Absolutely. So this was a project that grew out of my last grant from the Davis Educational Foundation. I had done a quantitative study that I talked with you all about in the past. And we had some funds left. And I had an honor student, Jasmin Veerapen, who’s now at Columbia, getting her social work degree, and she needed an honors thesis project. And so we collaborated together and ran a qualitative follow up and interviewed students from 35 different very diverse types of institutions across the country. And it was not a project focused explicitly on mental health, but on emotions and learning. So for instance, the first two questions we asked of all of our participants was: What was the best learning experience you have had in college, and tell us all about it?” And the second was, “What was one of the worst learning experiences you had in college?” ..and their insights are all so rich, and I share a number of their wonderful stories in the book. It’s a great pleasure.

John: Would that be something that you’d encourage faculty to do in their own classes?

Sarah: Yes, it was very illustrative, a lot came out of that. And we actually had worked with a consultant, Gary Senecal, because this was my first qualitative research study, and so I didn’t really know what I was doing. And he’s done a lot of qualitative research, and so he was our consultant. And he helped us shape the questions. And I think he had a large role in shaping those first two questions, because they’re just open ended enough that students share very different things, but then they all coalesce, and so it was very informative. And I think many professors could learn a lot asking their students those questions.

Rebecca: You included many narratives throughout your book, some of your own personal stories and some of the stories of student voices from this project. Can you talk about why you decided to include narrative as a part of the book?

Sarah: Yes, when I think about the books that I most like to read, the nonfiction books that I most like to read, they have a really strong narrative component. So I recently read Why Fish Don’t Exist, which was one of my favorite reads out of the last few years. And I love Robert Sapolsky’s books, and I’m a story person. And I mostly read fiction. And so I really enjoy nonfiction that has a strong narrative component. So that was one of my motivations, that I wanted to write a book that was like the books that I like to read. I think that story, though, also is really compelling. I think that there are insights that are embedded in stories that things like quantitative data can’t always tap into in the same way. And I think in particular, for topics like this, and for emotions and for students’ perceptions of their own learning, I think that we need story.

John: In addition to narrative, which is really compelling in your book, you also bring in a number of other disciplinary studies. Could you talk a little bit about some of the other disciplines and some of the other research your book relies on

Sarah: That’s a little, maybe, too far into humanities, I’m a little worried. I am a social scientist by training. And I’m very aware of the fact that there is disciplinary expertise. But I do bring in a lot of humanity’s work, in particular monster theory. So I read quite a bit of monster theory, which wasn’t even something that I knew existed before then, but that’s in there. I do something that I get from my mother. I used to make fun of my mother for always citing literature and stories as evidence for things. I would take an anthropology class and come home from college, and we would talk about it. And she would shake her head at me and say, “Well, that’s not how it happened, in Clan of the Cave Bear. [LAUGHTER] But I do a little bit about that. So I bring in some stories from novels and short stories that I think illustrate the points that I’m trying to make as well. And then I think, most compellingly, I bring in actual experts from their disciplines. So I interview a sociologist about her research on trigger warnings. I interview a Latin American Studies scholar about his work on vocation, which I found so fascinating. And I also interviewed a couple of clinicians, as I said, and Kelly Leonard who is a Second City improv person, and so I bring in those other disciplines through the lens of the people I’m interviewing.

Rebecca: Sometimes it’s really helpful to have these illustrations because statistics can go only so far in helping us understand what that actually looks like and feels like in our classrooms or in the experience that students are having because we can feel really far removed… or I’m feeling farther and farther removed [LAUGHTER] from students and it helps to hear things in their own voices. And we don’t always ask them enough. I wish we asked more.

John: …which is something really troubling to those of us who focus mostly on statistical analyses, and so forth. [LAUGHTER] But it’s true, a compelling story can be much more effective in convincing people of some concept than any number of studies that you might present to them.

Sarah: But we do have lots of citations for people like you, John. But I tried to bring both sources to the table,

Rebecca: …which is good, because you got both of us here.

Sarah: Mm hmm.

Rebecca: So can you talk a little bit about the intended audience of your book?

Sarah: Absolutely. My primary audience, I think, is people who are doing the work of higher education, so college instructors, staff like me who work in teaching centers, and student success offices, administrators, and so it does have a strong higher ed thread throughout. That said, I don’t think there’s a super bright line between especially late high school and early college in some of these concerns. And I think it could be useful for high school educators, especially those who might be advising students about the college selection process. I think that there is some insight and some sections, maybe, that could be of interest to college students themselves, and possibly their parents. But I would want them to know that it’s not a parenting book. I don’t want anyone to pick it up thinking it’s a parenting book. There’s long sections, again, on trigger warnings and institutions needing to actually carry out their DE&I statements. And someone picking it up thinking they’re going to get some pithy advice about parenting is not going to be satisfied.

John: Would this be a good focus for faculty reading groups or book clubs?

Sarah: I think so. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: We think so too. [LAUGHTER] Yeah, it looks like, yeah, it looks like some really wonderful topics that you’re exploring to think about all of higher ed in a lot of ways, and perhaps some reimagining that needs to happen.

Sarah: Oh, thank you.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about what we, as educators or people working in higher ed, can do to create a more compassionate and challenging environment for our students? What are some actions we can take?

Sarah: Well, I think you have to do the compassion piece first. And I think that colleges really need to be examining, and I think they are examining, there’s lots of other people sharing this message of compassion and relationship, rich education, thinking of Peter Felton and Leo Lambert’s book. And I think that we need to embed compassion in the atmosphere in the classroom and the dorms. I think that we need to pay a lot of attention to community. I think that we need to shore up resources in counseling centers. I’ve been attending, as part of the research for this book, lots of webinars with people who are looking at this topic from a lot of different frameworks. And there’s a lot of interesting work being done on peer support, which I’m both interested in and also wary of. I think that peers are our natural first source of support. And that peer support could be really life changing for a lot of college students. But just like we shouldn’t be doing therapy in the classroom, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of college students to do counseling for their fellow peers. And they’re trained to spot warning signs and to do the kind of heavy lifting that a lot of counseling involves. And so I think that we’re going to need to dedicate more resources to trained clinicians in our counseling centers. In my interview with Ryan Glode in the book, who is, again, a clinical counseling psychologist, he really feels that counseling centers provide just sort of venting sorts of therapy, and that he’s a strong advocate of cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapy, and that students need much more individualized treatment and approaches. And so I think that that’s an interesting thing to explore. And the last thing I would say is, I always say this, but faculty need more support and time, because there’s been a lot of great essays coming out, the last couple of weeks even I’ve seen, about the fact that student success is really faculty success, and faculty are where students get more of their support than anywhere else. And we can try to reach out to them in many different ways, but they land in our classrooms, we know that we’ll see them in their classrooms, even if they’re not leaving their dorm much, they usually come to class. And so it’s an entry point. Mentoring is such a strong part of the college experience and so wonderful for growth and mental health. And so I think that for faculty to really apply all of this and have really close student relationships and really rich classrooms and all of these things, they need more time and more support. And so I think that the two places I would put my support is in the counseling center and then in supporting faculty, giving them the kinds of time and the kinds of support that will allow them to be the teachers that they can be when they have the time to do so.

Rebecca: Are there specific places where you found compassion to be lacking that surprised you in your research? We know that there’s a [LAUGHTER] strain on counseling centers, but were there some other places that really rose to really needing some attention,

Sarah: None of the students we talked to had trouble coming up with either a best or worst learning experience. And the good ones are really, really good. And the poor ones were pretty poor. And so there’s a lot of unevenness, I think, and I think that that, when I talk as I just did about, if you just give faculty more time, then they’ll blossom, and then the students will blossom, and sometimes when I have conversations with administrators about that, or see policies being enacted on different campuses, I can tell that there’s a wariness that if you give faculty time, they’ll just either do more research, or they will check out and that there’s a danger there and we need to work faculty harder. And I do see in talking to the students about their best and worst learning experiences, that the people teaching those worst learning experiences really need to step up their game a little bit. And so I think that there are those pockets out there that still don’t apply themselves to their teaching or look at it as an onerous responsibility. But the good teachers are really fantastic. And so maybe leveling that out a little bit, bringing the worst learning experiences up to the best learning experiences might be somewhere I recommend some attention.

John: One of the areas where people often see a dichotomy between compassion and challenge is in terms of deadlines in courses where material later in the course build on material earlier in the course, it’s really easy for students who are struggling to get further and further behind when they don’t have at least some sort of a deadline. Do you have any strategies for addressing that, besides focusing on the learning rather than on grades? What can we do to help ensure that students make regular progress while still maintaining compassion?

Sarah: Um hmm. I think this is the question of the moment. [LAUGHTER] And I can tell you, I just had a conversation with a reporter at The Chronicle who was writing a whole big piece on just this issue. And we at Simmons just met with our advisory council, who are a group of about 12 faculty who we check in with about what faculty needs are. And this was their number one answer, like clearly. So we’re going to do a panel in the spring at Simmons, where we have some faculty with very different perspectives. We’re hoping to draw out some of these tensions and have this discussion. And so I do think it’s an excellent question. And I think that a deadline is a good example of where compassionate challenge needs to be. I think that all of us need the structure of deadlines. I myself benefit [LAUGHTER] greatly from the structure of deadlines and schedules. And I think especially for college students in the early years, if they’re so-called traditionally aged students, some of the process of those first year or two of college is learning time management and in scaffolding them into good time management. And so I think that structure is very important. As Rebecca was saying earlier, it’s also an inclusive teaching strategy, Viji Sathy and Kelly Hogan have written extensively about that. But I think without compassion, deadlines are going to worsen student anxiety, and also it doesn’t make a lot of sense for contemporary life. And so some techniques that I’ve seen are things like using frequent tokens instead of just no deadlines or 100% flexibility with deadlines and things kind of pile up toward the end. You can have tokens where students can have a set number of missed assignments, or dropped assignments, or I need an extra week or two. I think that it’s important in whatever you do, if you are going to be flexible to be transparent with all of the students about it, because I think that some students will ask for flexibility and the other students won’t know that they can ask for flexibility. And a lot of that falls out along the lines where everything falls out and creates inequities. So I think that having some structure, but with some flexibility built in is probably the best way to go. I was interviewing a biology instructor for a different project. And she was telling me what she did is she had pretty close to unlimited flexibility within modules. So she had her whole semester set up in modules, but then you had to submit things within that module, because as you say, especially some fields, the information builds, and if you miss part, you’re going to be in trouble. And so I thought that was another interesting approach. But I agree that in particular when we’re thinking about mental health, that structure is better. And the last thing I’ll say is that at my previous campus, we had a panel of the Dean of first-year students, it was the head of our accessibility office, the head of our counseling center, and then a clinical counseling psychologist from our psychology department about issues surrounding student mental health. And one of the instructors asked about deadlines, and they were all unanimous, they said, deadlines are necessary. The worst thing you can do for a student high in anxiety is allow no deadlines or submissions whenever they like, because that will quickly get them into a negative place, and that they need that structure. So I think it’s a great example of the need for both compassion and challenge.

Rebecca: One of the things that I think about when I hear structure or certain kinds of support is routine. And you talked a little earlier about having some routine, but then disruptions to that routine. Can you talk about why some of the disruptions to the routine might be important, or why not having a routine all the time could be helpful for students?

Sarah: Well, I think the positives of routine are that they’re reassuring, for one thing. I think we all as human beings, it’s relaxing to settle into a routine, and it’s also lower in cognitive load. If you just know, okay, every Thursday, I have a homework assignment, every Tuesday I have a quiz, you don’t have to constantly be scrambling and figuring things out every week. And so I think that routines can be reassuring, and they can also be more transparent and easier to follow along. I think where the disruption is great is it re-energizes. So it’s great to be reassured and calm things down. But then that can get boring and kind of stultifying after a little while. And so once you have established the routine to mix things up once in a while, I think, can be re-energizing. And so I think that’s where a blend of the two can be really powerful.

Rebecca: You mentioned that you do this in your own classes. Can you share an example of one of the ways you mix things up in your own class,

Sarah: it’s not terribly exciting. But the one that I do this most clearly is in my motivation and emotion class. And in that class, we’re covering different topics and we’re reading research articles and doing presentations. And again, I try to mix things up, but I have a set number of things that I mix things up. And then usually right after Thanksgiving, I throw everything out the window and we just spend a week doing something different. And so we used to watch a movie together. And then we would write an essay about the motivation and emotion aspects and the themes that we’ve talked about all semester long, how it played out in those characters lives. And I was showing Lars and the Real Girl, I don’t know if it’s kind of an older movie now and stopped doing that for a while for a number of reasons. But then more recently, in this activity called “making the world a better place.” And I had a selection of psychological science articles, each one that tackled a societal problem, like climate change, or misinformation, and how we could use principles from recent psychological science research and to help improve this societal conundrum. And then we did small group work with snacks. And they would work on little group presentations all together that were very low stakes, and then present them to each other. And we would have a grant competition among them. But it was just this week where the routine was very different.

Rebecca: It sounds like almost a culminating point of the semester, instead of ramping up stress with a big project, it’s ramping down the stress with something that’s applied, but in a more low key way.

John: …but also valuable and fun.

Rebecca: Yeah, definitely. To me, it sounds like: “[LOUD EXHALE]”

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

Sarah: Well, I have a new grant. Well, a semi-new grant. And it’s a National Science Foundation Incubator Grant with my co-PI, Michele Lemons of Assumption University. And it is examining assessment, feedback, and grading in undergraduate bio education in particular. And so we had a qualitative portion, we had a survey portion, and we had student interviews, and we’ve just wrapped data collection, So I have a lot of writing and meaning-making and analysis, and then a full proposal grant [LAUGHTER] to write. So on the research side, that’s what’s going on. And on the writing side, I don’t know yet. I have a few possible ideas. I’m in a writers group with Jim Lang, who I know you both know, and his new book, which is going to be fantastic… and you have to have him on the show… is all about how academics can successfully write trade books for a wider audience. And I’ve been enjoying the chapters as he’s been writing them. And I was reading his chapter on where to get your book idea, and I realized that I’ve written a couple of books now from my expertise, but I don’t have to stick with my expertise. I could do something super fun. And so I don’t know.

John: Not that your expertise isn’t fun or interesting. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: Well, thank you. And anything I write will obviously have a strong psychology component, it’s just like in my bones at this point. But yeah, so stay tuned. We’ll see.

Rebecca: Sounds like some exciting things down the pike for sure.

John: We look forward to hearing more about that when you’re ready to share that.

Sarah: Oh, thanks.

John: Well, thank you. It’s great talking to you.

Sarah: Thank you. Always a pleasure.

Rebecca: Yeah, I always learn stuff from our conversations, so I’m looking forward to having you on again in the future.

Sarah: Oh, thanks. Same.

[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]

265. The New College Classroom

Despite all that we have learned from cognitive science about how people learn, the most common form of classroom instruction still involves students passively listening to a lecturer standing at a podium at the front of the room. In this episode, Cathy Davidson and Christina Katopodis join us to discuss alternative approaches that treat student diversity as an asset and allow all students to be actively engaged in their own learning.

Cathy is a Distinguished Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, the author of more than twenty books, and a regular contributor to the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She has served on the National Council of Humanities and delivered a keynote address at the Nobel Forum on the Future of Education. Christina is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Transformative Learning in the Humanities Initiative at CUNY and has authored over a dozen articles on innovative pedagogy, innovative pedagogy, environmental studies, and Early American Literature.  She has received the Dewey Digital Teaching Award and the Diana Colbert Initiative Teaching Prize.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Despite all that we have learned from cognitive science about how people learn, the most common form of classroom instruction still involves students passively listening to a lecturer standing at a podium at the front of the room. In this episode, we explore alternative approaches that treat student diversity as an asset and allow all students to be actively engaged in their own learning.

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

John: Our guests today are Cathy Davidson and Christina Katopodis. Cathy is a Distinguished Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, the author of more than twenty books, and a regular contributor to the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She has served on the National Council of Humanities and delivered a keynote address at the Nobel Forum on the Future of Education. Christina is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Transformative Learning in the Humanities Initiative at CUNY and has authored over a dozen articles on innovative pedagogy, innovative pedagogy, environmental studies, and Early American Literature. She has received the Dewey Digital Teaching Award and the Diana Colbert Initiative Teaching Prize. Welcome, Cathy and Christina.

Cathy: Great to be here. Thank you for having us.

Christina: Thank you so much.

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

Cathy: I am drinking English breakfast tea.

Rebecca: Yes. [LAUGHTER] And Christina?

Christina: I am drinking English breakfast tea.

John: And I am drinking wild blueberry black tea.

Rebecca: I forgot what kind of tea I made this morning. [LAUGHTER] I have no idea. I made nice loose leaf tea this morning, and it’s tasty, but I don’t remember what it is.

John: So you’re drinking a tasty tea.

Rebecca: I’m drinking a tasty tea this morning.

Cathy: Will I be kicked off the show if I say I’m drinking coffee?

John: About a third of our guests do. Yeah, and sometimes water.

Christina: I also have a Diet Coke. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Sneaky, very sneaky.

John: And I had that right before I came over here.

Christina: We’re drinking all of the things.

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss The New College Classroom. Could you tell us a little bit about how this book project came about?

Cathy: I can begin. This is actually the third in a series I called the “how we know” trilogy, which I began in 2011 after I stepped down as Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, my previous employer, and was really interested in the science of attention and the neuroscience of learning. So that book really is about the neuroscience of learning. Then I wrote a second book called The New Education which came out in 2017, and was re-issued in a post pandemic version just this past spring. And it’s called The New Education. It’s really the history of higher education and why we inherited the forms we have now and how much higher education was re-created for and rebuilt, redesigned explicitly for the industrial age. And then I wanted to do a kind of installation guide that actually showed people how we do these things, how you take our knowledge of how the brain works, take our knowledge of learning, and how you take our knowledge of history and why we’ve inherited this very cumbersome history and actually do something new. And I thought it would be ridiculous for someone at the end of a long career to be telling other people how to teach. And I had the great fortune to be working with this… Christina will close her ears right now, she gets very embarrassed when I say this… but this utterly brilliant scholar, an Americanist environmental scholar, sound studies scholar who also had written several essays on pedagogy and had won all the teaching awards. And I asked her if she’d be interested in co-writing a book with me. And we started writing it when I was a senior fellow to the Mellon Foundation in my beautiful office overlooking the courtyard of the Mellon Foundation. And then the pandemic hit. We made a pledge to one another that we’d meet every Tuesday and Thursday and write together and we literally wrote, rewrote, re-re-re-wrote, and then re-re-re-re-re-wrote [LAUGHTER] every word together during the pandemic. So when people say, “Can you have a real relationship? Can you have a real project during the pandemic?,” we would say “Absolutely.” And that’s actually kind of key to the book, ‘cause we talked about learning in all its facets online and face-to-face. But that’s the very long version of how I’m the luckiest author in the world to have been able to work with Christina.

Christina: I’m the luckiest. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: It must have been very nice to have the stability of consistent writing times with each other during a time that was so unstable.

Christina: Yeah, it was a lifeline. I live in Brooklyn, near the Barclays Center where a lot of the Black Lives Matter protesting was happening here. And kids will be playing in the street. They had to close the streets on the weekends and weekdays so that kids could get time outside and neighbors could gather together outside where it would be safe. And kids playing on the street, drawing all these beautiful things in sidewalk chalk, and then you’d see police completely decked out, batons out, pepper spray, all kinds of things, getting ready for the protest that was just completely peaceful protesting and a police force that was just prepared for something wildly different. And it was a really dark time in trying to protest and think of a better way, a more equitable institution, an institution that could prepare students for the world, to be citizens of the world and also to fight for social justice and racial justice, and getting together and writing this book. It felt we have even more purpose more so than ever, in writing this and leaning into the active learning methods that really prepare students to participate and engage with the world.

John: You begin the book with something which actually serves as a very nice introduction to much of the rest of the book, which is a story about a 50-person department meeting in which no one was responding to the department chair. Could you just share a little bit about this anecdote?

Christina: Sure. So I was in that department meeting, it was a meeting in which we were given a really big task of imagining the goals for the department for the next 10 years. This is a review that happens every 10 years. And the department chair was standing at the front of the room behind the podium and was like, “Alright, so what are our goals for the next 10 years?” [LAUGHTER] …and everyone was quiet. Because as you can imagine, everyone has things that they want to change, things that they think could be better, and no one wanted to be the first to speak. And it really just felt like one of those situations where there’s a bunch of dry straw, and someone could just light a match. And so I was like, “Okay,” I knew everyone there, and I was familiar with the chair. The chair was very supportive of students, and I knew he was willing to listen. And then I said, “Hey, can we just talk to someone next to us and come up with a few ideas first, before we speak with the whole group?” He’s like, “Sure.” And this is what’s called think-pair-share where everyone thinks about a question and then they pair up with someone next to them or a small group of people. And then when we’re all done, we come back and share what we came up with. And five minutes go by and he is trying to get the attention of everyone in the room, the room has exploded in all this conversation, but everyone is smiling and enjoying talking to the person next to them. They’re thinking more hopeful thoughts with their generous colleagues and students and faculty all together. And when the chair was finally able to call everyone back to order… I’ve done this in 8 ams… the poor people who teach next to me have said that my classes are too loud at 8 am. [LAUGHTER] And Cathy has done this with a lot of people every time she gives a talk, and it takes a long time to get everyone to come back to order. And then people were so eager to share what they had talked about in their groups. And there was a little bit of anonymity, because it was like, “Okay, everyone in my group said this, not just me,” [LAUGHTER] and everyone was willing to share and we started to envision some really beautiful goals for the next 10 years that were really hopeful, that were imaginative, and creative, and beautiful, rather than starting with critique. Or sometimes what happens is, if one person says something, then everyone else kind of jumps on that train, and this way, diverse number of ideas coming out of these different separate conversations. So that’s why we do it.

Cathy: If you want an education-ese term this is called an inventory method. It’s the opposite of the standard seminar where you ask a question and those same three students raise their hand dutifully and answer the question. And sociologists of education have studied who those students are who raise their hand. And they tend to be a good match for the professor in class and race and gender and family background, family income… the people who are most into the class, most likely to get an A plus, most likely to go on to graduate school, most likely to be professors, replicate their professor. And that’s one reason why only 1% of Americans have a PhD and 25% of the professoriate has a parent that has a PhD. We have a system that’s a closed system. When you do an inventory method, like the one that Christina uses, think-pair-share, everybody in the classroom contributes. In that case, it was a meeting. But that’s true in a classroom too. Sociologists of education also tell us that 20% of students graduate from college without ever having spoken in a class unless they were required to speak by a professor. But if we really believe that higher education is about empowering students, not just giving them content, but giving them the tools to be experts themselves, then they have to learn how to articulate those ideas. And of course, some people are shy and then having them write on an index card means they’re still participating , even if they’re too shy to actually say something in class. An incredible method that I learned from a second grade teacher and I’ve done in many situations. Christina was alluding to the famous one I tell all the time about trying think-pair-share with 6000 International Baccalaureate teachers in the Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers auditorium. So they’re all thinking and pairing and sharing on these jumbotrons in the auditorium.[LAUGHTER] It was great. And I’ve also done it with the top 100 performing CEOs of the Cisco foundation. I did this with the Board of Trustees at Duke and John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco was on, he said, “I need you to talk to my executives, because there’s nobody more likely to be reticent about giving comments than one of my CEOs who’s talking to me. Power does that. There’s a kind of silence that happens in the face of power, whether it’s with second graders or a department meeting like Christina was in or students every day in our classes.

Rebecca: I think what’s really interesting about both of the stories that you’re sharing is that we’ve been in those situations where the silence is overwhelming, we’ve maybe have been the person running the meeting or the classroom or also been the person in the audience.

Cathy: And it feels awful, it feels terrible. My students call it’s playing silence chicken. [LAUGHTER] That’s a great term.

Rebecca: It’s a perfect descriptor for sure. So given that we’ve all had these experiences, and also have experienced the opposite. I think probably all of us, or at least most of us have experienced those engaging opportunities. Why do we always default to the one that doesn’t work? [LAUGHTER]

Cathy: Every structure we have in academe tells us our job is to learn from the master. And I use that word in quotation marks, but pointedly, and then repeat back what you learn on a final exam and that’s how you get As. And the students in our classrooms, they’re the winners, not the losers. They got to college because they learned that lesson, Freire calls it the “banking model,” where it’s my head dumping and depositing stuff into your head. We also have studies that go back to the 1880s, not 1980s, 1880s, the Ebbinghaus experiments with memory that tell us we forget 75% of what we’ve learned for that exam within weeks after the exam is over. So it’s not an effective way to learn, but it’s the way we learn. So we’re being reinforcing in a way of learning we only use in higher education and formal education, we don’t learn new skills that way, when it’s not commonsensical to learn from a lecture. I don’t learn how to play tennis from a video. I might look at a video, but that’s not how I get better. I practice and I improve and someone corrects me, and then I change what I’m doing. We all know that. But, for education, we’re told, learn from the sage on the stage. That’s what you’re supposed to do. That’s how you excel and our students have learned how to excel. It makes complete sense that they would think they learned more from a lecture than when they contribute. They’re deferring to the authority in the room.

Christina: And I think that this has been ingrained in them for a long time. We’ve been ranked and rated since birth, literally the first minute of birth ranked against others. And this one wonderful researcher, Susan Engel. She’s at Williams College, developmental psychologist, and she cites a study where kids on average before they go to school, when they’re at home asked about 27 questions per hour. And anyone who has a toddler, sometimes it is well more than 27 questions per hour. [LAUGHTER] My toddler just started asking why about literally absolutely everything. He’s about three. So right on target for asking lots of questions, for being naturally curious about the world. She talks about this. It’s called epistemic curiosity. And Dr. Engel says that once kids go to school, they ask on average three questions per hour, which is just a precipitous drop in getting to ask your questions, getting to know the world around you through engaging with it. And so by the time they get to college, they expect to learn more from a lecture, that they are not experts in the room, and that the person at the front of the room has all of the answers. And they have been trained through standardized testing to believe that there is a right answer, and they just need to be able to get to that right answer. That doesn’t train them to take on the world’s toughest problems and be problem solvers, to find alternative solutions, to think outside the box. And maybe those problems in the world are caused by believing there is a right answer and not thinking that maybe it’s me sitting in the room with all of these other people sitting in the room who could find a better solution or a better answer than the one that that one person has. And that’s how we change society. That’s how we transform our institutions. And I think they’ve just been ingrained in this system for so long, that by flipping it around and saying no, there are 50 different ways to answer this one question or 50 different ways to solve this one mathematical equation, then it’s more up to them. It’s giving them a little more responsibility and autonomy so that they can practice using it when they get out into the world rather than thinking, “Oh, there’s someone smarter than me who clearly has that figured out and they’ll take care of that problem.” That doesn’t really give them the kind of responsibility and accountability that I think that we all need in the world.

Rebecca: What you were talking Christina, I was thinking about a conversation I had with my kindergartner over the weekend, who does still ask many, many questions, some of which I do not know the answer to and so I don’t remember what she was asking me but whatever it was, I did not know the answer. And I said, “I don’t know, we’ll have to look that up” and she’s like, “I’ll ask my teacher, she knows the answer.” She’s in kindergarten, she’s only been in kindergarten for two months.

Cathy: I interviewed kindergarten teachers and first-grade teachers about learning. And almost every kindergarten teacher said, “when kids come to them, they think they can do all these things like ‘I love math, I love music, I love art, I’m an artist,’ by first grade, within six months into the first grade, they know, ‘I’m not good at art, I’m not good at math, I’m okay at language, but I’m very poor at…’ and already have absorbed those kinds of lessons about themselves.” And what you said is great, because it’s like the authority of the teacher is already happening. And then what happens when you absorb those lessons into a self definition. And that’s what we’re working against with active learning, is not just definition of the teacher, but definition of yourself in your role as a person.

John: And that’s hard to correct at the college level, because students have been indoctrinated in this from their very first exposure to educational systems. And when faculty do try using active learning, they often get a lot of pushback from the students. And that’s a challenge for new faculty where their teaching evaluations may have some impact on their continued employment. So it’s a difficult cycle to break.

Cathy: Yes, and it’s one reason why we include the research, serious research with any thing we offer to faculty members about what they can do in their class. And we also talk about the 2014 meta study in the publication of the National Academy of Science that looked at every possible way of evaluating learning and said if this had been a pharmaceutical follow-up study that Eric Mazur, who’s one of the inventors of the flipped classroom, did at MIT because his brilliant MIT students, were all sure they were being shortchanged by active learning. So he had them read serious scientific studies of active learning and then they all thought they were doing great by having active learning, and they thought they were better. So it’s about using the methods that speak to people in order to change the methods because unless you address the actual present situation of the audience, of the students, of the people you’re addressing, you can’t change things, you have to honor that present situation before you can move to something else and make a structural change beyond that.

Rebecca: A lot of the current system of higher education, as you mentioned, is based on a really different era, a really different audience of students and our student populations have changed, become more diverse, there’s more people going to college now than before. So how do we help students who have been through this system that has not really invited them to the table to really get involved. We share some of the research, and what are some other ways we can support them on this endeavor, and to continue helping us change the system.

Christina: Some really great pedagogy out there. One I’m thinking is an assignment that Erin Glass does with her students where they read terms and conditions for all of the technology that they’re using on their campuses. And they have to closely read them and critique them to help them become more aware of capitalist surveillance and what they are required to sign up for. And then they write a critique of that, of the university and of the system that they’re being signed up for, so they’re not only learning more, they’re learning digital literacy. They’re also learning more about the institution that is guiding these things that they’re signing up for. And they’re becoming better critical readers in general. And they’re also talking back to that institution and saying you could be doing better. And so there are ways in which we can give our students real-world problems that are immediately close to them and to their experiences of education, and task them with coming up with something better. And it’s really wonderful that students who come from all different kinds of educational systems to get together and think of what could be done better. Or Cathy also does this where at the end of the semester, a final project could be like, come up with a better syllabus. I don’t know if you want to speak to that Cathy, but I love this assignment.

Cathy: Yeah, I love to end the class where I be in the next class, like I say, “Okay, we’ve had about 12 weeks or 16, depending on the institution that I’m at, together and we’ve done this as a syllabus, and you’ve contributed to the syllabus, the last assignment, and sometimes we make this even as a final exam, is to make a syllabus the next people who take this class will inherit. Put your stamp on it. What did you like? What didn’t you like? That’s an incredible activity and it means it’s but again, using an education-ese term, it’s metacognition, too, because it means students are looking back over everything they’ve learned, which is the best way to beat the Ebbinghaus 75% forgetting because you’re actually processing it, analyzing it, and then trying to come up with some new version that you’re bequeathing to somebody else. It’s a legacy that you’re bequeathing to somebody else. It’s a marvelous exercise and you can do it in any kind of class. It’s quite fascinating to see the different ways people can come up with things. So often people say, “Well, you’re an English teacher, so of course, you’re flexible.” But what about… there’s somebody named Howie Hua, who’s a professor at Cal State Fresno, who on Twitter almost every day he comes up with what he calls mental math problems. And he’ll ask something seemingly simple that you think there’s no other way to solve that, like, “Add in your head 24 plus 36? How did you do it?” And dozens of people respond with different ways to add whatever those two numbers are that I just said, in their head. And it’s fascinating, because the point he’s making is it’s not about the right answer. It’s about, not only understanding the processes, but understanding all the different tools that we can have in order to be better mathematicians, more passionate about science or more passionate about all kinds of learning. So I think any assignment that gives students the tools and allows them, and even better is when they can pass on those tools to somebody else. When Erin Glass does that assignment, they not only critique, but they come up with their own terms of service. What are the terms of service for our class? What’s the community constitution for our class? What are the community rules we’re going to form in this class? …and so they’re already invested in a new kind of structure even before you start populating what that structure is going to look like.

Christina: And I think from the first day, you can really set students up for something different. One thing that Bettina Love does in her classes is she has everything set up and she goes, “Okay, now you tell me when the deadlines are going to be for this.” And so students look at their calendars, look at their schedules, and determine when things are going to be due so that they’re not all due in the same week as midterms or as in the same week as finals. That’s a very student-centered approach, asking students to come up with the learning outcomes of a class. And even in the most restrictive situations, you can add learning goals and learning outcomes, even if yours are set by the department. So I think also asking students what needs to change to better serve them and centering them in that conversation, you can start with your class and then start to think more broadly about a department or a whole institution.

Cathy: What I love about all of these different things, and we’ve borrowed them from other people, one of the things we did was we interviewed so many people, academic twitter was very helpful for that, to find out what they were doing and profile people and amplify people who are doing amazing things. What works best is when something specific, if you say how should we change this class, you get silence chicken. If you say here are the 10 learning outcomes that our department requires us to write, do you have anything else you’d like to add? Maybe work with a partner and come up with your own additions to these required learning outcomes? Students come up with beautiful, soaring, inspirational things that just make you aware that if they’re allowed not to be cynical, students want to have agency and want to have something that will help them in the rest of their life, it’s pretty scary to think about the world out there. And they want and need these things and want to be participants in the shaping of their own life and in their own agency.

Christina: And you’re reminding me too, that there’s this widespread movement right now to rename office hours, to call them student hours, because students are so used to going to the office being a punitive experience. And student hours really welcomes them to come with maybe more than just “I’m having difficulty with this problem set.” “But I want to talk about my career, what can I do with this degree? Or I’m having difficulty with x? Can you help me with y?” I think it really better serves them as well to rename it student hours to show that we actually really want you to come and we really want to talk to you. I don’t want to just sit alone in my office. [LAUGHTER] I want you to be here.

John: What are some other activities or ways in which we could give students a bit more agency? You mentioned the reflection on the syllabus and rewriting a new syllabus at the end. And you also hinted at having students be engaged in the syllabus itself. What are some other ways we can do this during the course of the class?

Cathy: I often quote our friend Jonathan Sterne, who teaches at McGill University because this is the most counterintuitive one. Jonathan teaches various versions of mediasStudies, media information, technology, and disability studies. He himself had throat cancer, and he talks through a voice box that he himself helped to design… a remarkable human being. He teaches classes of 400 to 600 students, and people say there’s no way… how in the world could that be active learning? He hands out index cards and at the end of every class students write down an answer to something he asks. He might ask “What did we talk about in class today that you’re still going to be thinking about before you go to sleep at night? And if there was nothing, what should we have been talking about?” Today’s media if you don’t have anything to say about media in the modern world, something’s misfiring. He has a blog about his learning, and he’s charted how well students have done since you’ve done these simple exercises of having students report back after every class. He also works with TAs who have special sections, and they take the 15 cards from their section, so they know what questions the students have before they go into the session. And then he uses some of those to spur his next assignment. He does this kind of cool thing where he spreads it all the cards and says, “Well, John said so and so. And Deborah said so and so. And Rebecca said, so and so. And Christina said so and so.” So he makes it interactive. He also does an incredible thing. He says, “With this many students, I have to use multiple choice testing, and I know how impoverished multiple choice testing is.” So he sets his students a creative assignment each time, sometimes it’ll be a piece of notebook paper, sometimes it’ll be an index card, and he’ll say, “You can write any crib sheet you want, go back, and you can do anything you want from the semester to help you do well on the multiple choice exam.” And what he knows is what they write on that crib sheet is the learning, right? It’s not filling in the ABCDEs, it’s the learning he also leaves some portion, it might be 5%, might be five points, it might be10 points, depending on the system he’s using. He’s Canadian university, so it’s a slightly different system than in the US. But he leaves some amount free, and students hand in both their multiple choice exam and their crib sheet. And he gives extra points for the crib sheets. He’s even done art installations with some of the crib sheets that students have done. But the point is the way you review a class and organize the knowledge onto some very prescriptive sheet, and he says the prescription is extremely important… he’s a composer as well. So he knows how it’s important is to have rules and to play with those rules. And it’s almost like a game. That’s where the learning is happening. So even in the most restrictive situation, you can still do active learning and learning that’s meaningful to how your students learn and how they retain and how they can apply that learning later.

Christina: A colleague of mine, Siqi Tu, also has her sociology students come up with some of the questions that will be included on the final exam. And you can do this with a multiple choice or a long answer type of exam, and the students develop a question. And then when they submit their questions to the professor to review, they also need to include what skills are we assessing with this question? And is this the right answer? What are the various ways you could get to the right answer? And if the right answer is D, then why are you offering A, B, and C as other but wrong answers? Why are they not the right answer? …things like that, to get students to have this kind of command over what they’re learning, why it’s important, what is worthy of being assessed, and how to go about assessing it and testing that knowledge. They have a lot more agency then in how they are being evaluated. And so their expertise is also being solicited there. And the majority of the learning is happening in creating the question and explaining all of the pieces of how that question has been crafted and what the right answer is and why. And then, at the end, she includes at least a portion of the student-generated questions on the final exam. And so it not only gives them great exam prep, but then they also know better what to expect. And they have more agency and control over how they’re being evaluated.

Rebecca: I really enjoyed some of the titles of the chapters in your book, for example, “group work without the groans.” [LAUGHTER] And I thought, yes, group work without the growns. So they resonate.

Cathy: I used to consult quite a lot with business. And just because of that I helped create the Duke Corporate Education Program, which was for returning executives, when I taught at my previous institution. And the number one expense of management experts who are brought into corporations to help manage more effectively is to help them with group work. And in classrooms, sometimes even in sixth grade, we say “Work in your groups and then do something amazing.” Well, no, we know what’s going to happen. That one person who raises their hand, they were one of the three who raises their hand, and in the group, they’re the one that does all the work, then there’s somebody else who kind of goofs off, and then there’s somebody else who does nothing at all. And we know those patterns, and it’s horrible for all three, it’s horrible for the person who always steps up, they’re not being pushed, and it’s horrible for the person who does nothing or the person who goofs off. So when I do group work, I have students write job descriptions. They write out job descriptions for who is going to do what in the group and I also love to have them do an exercise that I call superpowers. What’s your hidden superpower? What’s your three things you do that you think have no relevance at all to this group but that you know you do really well? It might be playing video games. I’ve had people say they were a clown. I found out that my executive director of the program I run was a professional clown. I didn’t know that. She’s a gorgeous young woman and she was a clown. She’s the last person I would have thought of who would be a professional clown. People have these skills, and what they find out in a group is those skills are not irrelevant, because you’re talking in group work not only about coming up with a product, but about interrelationships. And how you can make all the different parts of your personalities work together coherently to create a final product. Also, I have students put that on their resume. I have them look online at what employers most prize. And it turns out collaboration… duh…because that’s what they spend their money improving. Somebody who can be a great collaborator is somebody you want to hire in a job. So my students can not only put that on their resume, but have a wonderful example. You don’t have to say it’s in a classroom. I worked on a project with four others, and we took that project in from idea to implementation, and my role was the firestarter. That’s a term from computer scientists. I’m especially good at coming up with new ideas and presenting those ideas to a group. Fantastic. And then they don’t grown, they realize they’re learning a skill, not being put back into a pattern that they themselves hate and are embarrassed by or resentful of.

Christina: And I think in addition to telling them why group work is important, that they’re going to end up working in groups for the rest of their lives. Everything I’ve done in any job has been collaborative to some degree, and mostly a lot, like really collaborative. And so I just kind of tell them, “This is not busy work, this is actually good practice for the rest of your life, because at the end of the semester, you’re not going to work with these people anymore. But if you’re in a job, the only way to leave that group is to leave that job and the stakes are so much higher. So first of all, this is good practice.” But I think also, we sometimes neglect to offer students the structures that they need to feel confident in their grade for group work, and to feel confident going into group work. So from the get go, giving students structure for the group work, like a checklist of jobs or asking them to come up with a checklist of tasks that they need to complete, assigning roles, like putting a name next to each item on that checklist, so that it’s clear who is doing what. Teaching them a skill like that is teaching them how to delegate authority, how to be a good entrepreneur, a leader, and pointing that out to them that by creating this checklist and putting everyone’s name next to everything, you’re delegating authority, you’re learning these leadership skills that you need in the workforce, and helping them to understand that it is absolutely okay and totally normal to feel social anxiety before going into a group, particularly after a pandemic, when we really lost the ability to make small talk.

Cathy: It’s exhausting. [LAUGHTER]

Christina: It’s exhausting. It’s exhausting. It is we lost that skill. Oh my goodness,

Cathy: Today happens to be a Monday and I had brunches on Saturday and Sunday and took a nap after each one. I can’t remember how to do brunch anymore. [LAUGHTER] And we’re all in that situation.

Christina: It’s true. I just wanted to add one more thing, which is that it’s not just social anxiety, but it’s also anxiety about grades and grading. And we have a whole chapter about grades. Because no one likes grading. No one likes grading. And I think it’s important too for students to know that they’re being graded and assessed fairly on group work. I’m so having that checklist of roles and turning that in at the end to show who did what is really important. And inevitably, it’s funny because we also put faculty into groups …that transformative learning the humanities… where I work, and this inevitably happens with faculty too, that they get really anxious about working when the ideas aren’t gelling together. And I think it’s really important for students to know how they’re being graded. And if someone’s ghosting or someone’s not pulling their weight or not showing up, give everyone else extra credit for helping to make that work, helping to reach out to that person who’s not showing up or ghosting: “Are you okay?” And a lot of times that person is not okay. And they needed someone to reach out and ask if they’re okay, they need that support. So offering the students who unclog a problem, you can give them a plunger award, literally, that happens in a lot of groups, or do something to recognize someone who goes above and beyond to help resolve those kinds of conflicts and issues, rather than it feeling like “Oh, but my grade is being hurt by someone else.” I think it really helps to foster collaborative community and a learning community where everyone is important. Everyone is valued and everyone needs to be okay for the group work to be successful. How can we help our colleagues, our peers.

Cathy: Around 2005 to 2010 years for my organization HASTAC which I co-founded in 2002… NSF now called it the world’s first and oldest academic social network… we created a wiki and we went to this guy in a garage and asked him if he would help us create a wiki and then the next year he launched Wikipedia… that was Jimmy Wales. [LAUGHTER] So that’s how old, that’s how ancient this is. But with that world, we were dealing a lot with open-source computer programmers. When they would do a job, when a job would be posted on Stack Exchange or another open source site, they would have to find a partner that they’d never worked with before and know if that person was reliable, somebody who could complement their skills, and so they do a badging system. And I worked with the Mozilla Foundation on creating badging systems, where you would write down all the criteria that you need to accomplish a job and you never gave a negative, you never give a negative, you just give somebody a badge if they did something great in doing that, and then somebody else who comes by and wants to look to see if they want to work with that person sees where they’ve been given the right badges and says, “ooh, yeah, those are the things I do poorly and those are things what you do well.” Again, HASTAC calls that collaboration by difference. Not everybody has to do everything perfectly, but you have to know, you have to have an inventory of what people contribute. So in my classes, also, when I’m doing group work, I’ll have students not only write their own job descriptions, but write a list of the qualities they think are most important for the success of the group as a whole. And after every week, when they come together, I’ll have them give badges to the people. I don’t even say how many, what percentage, just give a badge to someone who you think really showed up this week, and give a badge in a different category. You don’t have to tell the person who never gets a badge from any of their peers that they’re not pulling their weight. And then that can be a first step, as Christina said, to doing something like reaching out and saying, “You must feel terrible that nobody’s given you a badge in anything. What’s going on? Is it indifference? Is something going on your life? What’s happening?” Yeah, and it doesn’t have to be punitive. But when you see that none of your peers are rewarding you, sometimes it’s like, “Darn them. I’m doing all the work. But I’m a shy person. So I just make the corrections.” That often happens among computer programmers who often are not the most voluble, personable, people. They used to wording, we’re doing code? And someone will say, :”No, no, no, I was fixing all the code you didn’t see, you just didn’t look and see that I was fixing all the code.” And then you can make an adjustment to and it’s an incredibly important adjustment. I’m working with somebody now who was Phi Beta Kappa, three majors, straight As, et cetera, et cetera, and never spok in college. And when she hears these methods, she says, “This would have changed my whole way of being in college.” Instead of feeling shame of all the people who should not feel shame, she felt ashamed that she wasn’t contributing. And because she was never offered an opportunity to until she wrote this brilliant final exam or brilliant final research paper when her teachers knew but in class, she felt like she was failing. That’s horrible. That somebody that brilliant would ever feel like they weren’t doing a great job.

Christina: I think it also asked how to get students excited. And thinking about what Cathy just said, I like to frame group work as an opportunity to practice being a step-up or a step-back person. So if you’re normally a step-up person, like everyone loves that you’re the first to volunteer to help. It’s great to be a step-up person, but sometimes that doesn’t leave room for stepping back and taking into account all of the things that have been said, and reflecting on the larger picture and finding the forest through the trees. And so I invite students to try to practice if you’re generally a step-up person, try being a step-back person. And if you’re generally a step-back person, try being a step-up person and see how it goes. And I also put all of the really loud step-up people in a group together, and I put all of the really quiet step-back people in a group together, because at some point, they’re going to have to talk and the step-up people need a way to regulate who is talking. And so I think a lot of us try to distribute those people through groups, and that can really change group dynamics. So I like having them all together in various ways to feel comfortable being among peers and navigating those roles and being more aware, calling to mind those roles before group work, so they could get excited about trying something new, and recognize that this is always just practice.

John: Will these methods help to create a more inclusive classroom environment?

Christina: These methods are inclusive because they solicit participation from every single person in the room. Inventory methods achieve total participation, that’s a term from the American Psychological Association, 100% participation, not just the hand-raising few. So these methods are inclusive.

John: There has been a lot of criticism recently concerning the way in which traditional grading systems cause students to focus on trying to achieve the highest grades rather than on learning. Do you have any suggestions on how we can focus student effort on learning rather than achieving higher grades?

Christina: Shifting the focus from grades to learning? A very quick answer would be thinking along the lines of Carol Dweck and using a growth mindset… that we are all learning… that you can do more assignments that are completion-based or labor-based to a satisfactory degree rather than A, B, C, D, F. And I think that one really great model is from Debbie Gail Mitchell, who teaches chemistry in Denver. She decided that an 80 is achieving proficiency. And the goal is to achieve proficiency. And so if you get an 80 on an exam or an assignment, then you receive the total number of points for that exam or assignment. And there’s a total number of points to achieve for the whole class. And so assignment or exam adds up to that. And so students stop grade grubbing or worrying if they’re getting an 83 or an 84. And they focus more on learning.

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

Cathy: At one of those brunches This weekend, I had the privilege to meet someone named Matt Salesses, S-A-L-E-S-S-E-S, who is a novelist who just took a job in the MFA program at Columbia, who’s also written a book called Craft. And the book looks at how we teach writing in writing workshops by looking at novels and noticing how often white-authored novels don’t tell you the race of the white characters, but do tell you the race of the non-white characters, and how much craft through all fields as well as in writing workshops often assumes a putative expert in a putative subject as being white. And then everybody else gets defined. So even when we do the terms like diversity and inclusion, there’s an implicit grounding that the person who has craft and earns that craft is going to be from the dominant race. And it’s a really interesting book that looks at the Iowa Writers Workshop and the principles by which it was written up. You could have done craft as a way that higher education was set up. So many of the people who started and set up the metrics for higher education in the late 19th century were in fact, eugenicists, they really believed there was a biological reason for racial superiority and created a system that reified that prejudice that they had. So that’s just a parting. I just happened to be at a brunch at one of those exotic face-to-face human real experiences this weekend where I met an astonishing person with an astonishing book that I’m thinking about more and more. So that’s a what next for me as of yesterday, but that’s the wonderful thing about active learning is yesterday always has something interesting you can learn from.

Christina: My what next is I’m working on an article right now with a colleague, Josefine Ziebell. We’re both sound studies scholars, and also interested in pedagogy. And we’re looking at the school-to-prison pipeline, and the ways in which school soundscape mirrors the carceral soundscape, and how to give students more sonic agency. And so thinking about silence in the room, thinking about voice, and in what ways speaking up can challenge authority and how that can cost you your life in the worst scenarios. And also just like bells ringing, the time ticking ways in which school soundscape can contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline by regimenting everything about a person’s body and depriving them of their sonic agency, where making noise is considered inappropriate when that is exactly what we need to do to transform these institutions. And so I guess that just studying that I find really interesting right now with Josefine.

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for such fascinating conversation today and things to think about and wonderful teasers for your book.

Cathy: Thank you very much.

Christina: Thank you so much.

[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]

238. Engaged Teaching

The past two years have been challenging for teachers to navigate and be excited about. In this episode, Claire Howell Major joins us to discuss what it means to be an engaged teacher as well as practical resources to support teachers on their journey. Claire is a Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership Policy and Technology Studies at the University of Alabama. She is the author or co-author of several superb books and resources on teaching and learning.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: The past two years have been challenging for teachers to navigate and be excited about. In this episode, we discuss what it means to be an engaged teacher as well as practical resources to support teachers on their journey.

[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 Claire Howell Major. Claire is a Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership Policy and Technology Studies at the University of Alabama. She is the author or co-author of several superb books on teaching and learning. Welcome back, Claire.

Claire: Thanks, I’m delighted to be here, John and Rebecca. Thanks for having me again. My second time, so yay.

Rebecca: Love it!

John: We’re really happy to have you back again. And our teas today are… Claire, are you drinking tea?

Claire: I am not. I’m drinking water.

Rebecca: John. I have a supreme English breakfast today.

Claire: Nice. Good choice.

John: Supreme as in?

Rebecca: It’s supreme.

John: Okay, we’ll leave it at that, and I have an Irish breakfast today. So part of the same empire there.

Rebecca: Yeah… [LAUGHTER]

John: That supreme empire.

Rebecca: I was going to say, is it very supreme? [LAUGHTER]

John: It is just Twinings Irish breakfast.

Rebecca: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss Engaged Teaching: A Handbook for College Faculty, your newest book, co-authored with Elizabeth Barkley, and its relationship with the K. Patricia Cross Academy. Could you first tell us a little bit about the creation of the K. Patricia Cross Academy?

Claire: Sure Rebecca, I would be delighted to. The Cross Academy is a resource that Elizabeth and I developed, in part, to honor Pat Cross, and her many, many contributions to higher education. Pat had just an amazing career in higher education that started really in about the mid 50s. And she finished her work in the mid 90s. And she served in a ton of high level administrative positions: at Cornell, at Berkeley, and at Harvard. And these were really high level positions at a time where it was pretty difficult for women to get high level positions. And she just did an amazing job and was really respected for her work as an administrator, but also for her work as a researcher. And you probably know her Classroom Assessment Techniques with Tom Angelo. It’s a fabulous book that shares formative classroom assessment techniques, and it has been used far and wide. I use it myself on a regular basis, and it’s been around for a long time and is still just a great tool. In that book, Pat and Tom developed a format for the assessment techniques that Elizabeth, Pat, and I used when we co-authored our first book together, Collaborative Learning Techniques. And it also served as the model for several of our later books, including Student Engagement Techniques, Interactive Lecturing, and Learning Assessment Techniques. And those techniques became the basis and the foundation for the Cross Academy. So that’s where it came from, but in addition to honoring Pat for her work, we also wanted to share information with faculty. We wanted to make some of these techniques a lot more accessible, so people didn’t have to necessarily go buy a book. That they could go to an online resource and pull that information anytime, anywhere, and also for free. We just wanted an open resource that could help faculty, and help faculty in short chunks. Each of our videos is about two to three minutes, and so it’s not a huge investment of time to go watch two or three minutes of video to get a great technique that faculty can try out in their own courses, and hopefully find a good use for. So our purpose there was twofold, to honor Pat and her work and also to widely share information that her work was foundational for, and we developed it from there and wanted to share that information with others.

John: At the teaching center here, we shared many resources with our faculty during the course of the pandemic. But the one that was most appreciated by faculty, based on the number of responses, was the K. Patricia Cross Academy resources. People wrote back saying how very useful it was, and how they wished they had seen it earlier and it’s gotten a lot of really positive responses here on campus, and I’m sure everywhere.

Claire: Well, thank you for that, John. I’m just delighted to hear it. It just warms my heart to hear that your faculty have enjoyed it. We have had a lot of visitors to the site, over 200,000 at this point. So I do think we are accomplishing that goal of sharing information with faculty. And we’re always just delighted, and so pleased to hear that people are finding it useful. That they are using the techniques in their own classes… so, just great news.

John: There’s so many other resources out there that describe some of the techniques that you have there, but they’re usually text based with maybe some images, or there may be a YouTube video or there may be some handouts attached to the text and so forth. But what people seem to really appreciate with this, and what we really appreciate with this is… you’ve got all those resources together in a really nice efficient arrangement. And you’ve devised a site where it’s really easy to find this material. You have a number of ways of indexing it. Could you talk a little bit about the ways in which people can access the information on the site?

Claire: Sure, sure. The site currently consists of 50 main videos, and each video is focused on a single teaching technique. For example, quick writes, or digital stories, or case studies and so on, and all of these techniques can be sorted in several different ways. You can search by the activity type, is it an assessment technique? Or is it a group learning technique? You can sort by the problem that it solves, for example, are you having trouble with student engagement? Are you having trouble with student attention? You can sort that way, and you can sort by Dee Finks’ learning taxonomy. So is it for foundational knowledge you’re trying to use the technique for? Are you trying to help students develop higher-order thinking skills? Are you trying to help students learn how to learn? And so the site is sortable in all those different ways, but it’s not just those 50 techniques. Each of those 50 techniques also has an online version. So we developed 50 additional videos, where we say, “Okay, here’s what a jigsaw is,” in the main video. And then in the accompanying video for how to do it online, we would say, “Here’s how you do a jigsaw in an online course.” So we have 100 videos really, because each of the 50 has the online version. And in addition to the videos, because you know, I’m pretty much a text-based person. I love to read, I love to see things in writing, I love books, all of those things. But we also have the techniques in downloadable templates. So in addition to watching the video, you can download a written version that gives you the quick and dirty of: here’s how you do it… provides the rationale for it. It gives an example of how it’s done in practice, a lot of times those examples come from my courses or Elizabeth’s courses. But there’s also worksheets space for faculty to record their own answers. And we also have a blog on the Cross Academy site, which we call CrossCurrents. And the blog publishes monthly, and we have different write ups each month of things that are timely and topical for teaching. And so we might discuss blended learning, for example, in a video or a blog, or another blog might be: “here’s how you can get students to read for class.” So we have all those different features in the Academy.

Rebecca: I love that everything is so bite sized, so that you can curate your own kind of collection of things to share as well so easily because the examples aren’t embedded in other examples. Which is sometimes you know, you might have a video or a workshop on good techniques, but then they’re all in the same thing. You can kind of separate them out, which is really nice. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Yes, thanks Rebecca. We think so too, and part of that is, we know how busy we are. I mean, gosh, right now especially, faculty are just overwhelmed with teaching, with research, with service, with whatever we’re doing. And it feels like now it’s even more so than, say, pre-pandemic, because there’s so much more emotional labor to engage in. And it’s just a lot of work. So how do you find time to work on your teaching, and that’s one of the things we wanted to do is make everything easily accessible, like I said, where you could learn something new in two to three minutes, or a five- or ten-minute read of a blog post or something like that. So the goal is to make it manageable, and very, very useful and very practical.

Rebecca: And such a great model for what we should be doing for our students.

John: One thing I do have to wonder, though, given what you just said about all the challenges that faculty are facing is… how you’ve been able to stay so incredibly productive with all of these books. I think you’ve written more really good books on teaching and learning than most faculty have ever read.

Claire: Well, thank you. I think that’s a compliment, [LAUGHTER] I’m gonna take it as one.

John: It is. I’m really amazed. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Please teach us the ways. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: I think there are maybe a couple of reasons for that. One, I have a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in English. So my background is in English, and in English you learn to write a lot and you learn to write quickly, right? [LAUGHTER] Or at least in my degree programs that was one of the features, but the other thing is that, maybe because of that degree is, I process by writing. I learn things by writing. It’s how I take in information and understand the world. So a lot of the books I’ve written and co-authored with Elizabeth and other people. You’ve met Todd, and Michael and some of the other folks that I’ve worked with, just wonderful, fabulous folks, but one of the things that I think I try to do is learn something. And when I’m learning something, I’m usually writing stuff down about it, and by the time I’ve written all the stuff down that I’ve learned, then I think, “Well, I can just share this with other people,” right? I’ve done all this work to try to understand something myself, to think through it. That’s something I can share with others, and that’s certainly how the first book that Elizabeth, Pat, and I developed together, the Collaborative Learning Techniques, came about. I was really struggling with collaborative learning. It is hard to do that well. But the benefits are worth it because the research is really clear on that. It helps students learn, it helps develop their learning outcomes, it helps them get along with each other, it helps increase understanding and awareness, it really benefits marginalized students, it benefits not marginalized students. I mean, the research is really clear that it is a fabulous technique. And so I just wanted to learn how to do it and learn how to do it well, and so I started digging into everything I could get my hands on, and trying to pull it together, and synthesizing it. And I talked with Pat Cross about it, and Pat said, “You know, we should use that classroom assessment technique format for this book. And by the way, Elizabeth Barkley is going to be writing this book with us,” and that’s how that got started. Anyway, I think that’s mainly it. It’s me trying to learn and I’m on a constant quest for trying to learn new things, and I just try to share that information when I can.

John: And we all benefit from that . Thank you.

Claire: Thank you.

Rebecca: So glad you’re so curious. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Yeah, I guess so. I guess I’m curious or motivated by challenges that I’m facing. So either way, either way.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about how Engaged Teaching, your new book, relates to the Academy?

Claire: Yes. So I think there are a lot of different ways it relates, but I’ll say this, we wanted to write a foundational, or introductory book for college teaching. So one of the things I try to do in my work is, I’ve mentioned how busy faculty are, I want to put theory and research into the faculty’s hands in ways they can use it to improve their own teaching and learning. And those have been narrow slices, like collaborative learning, like learning assessment techniques, like interactive lecturing, some of those things are pretty focused. And so Elizabeth and I were talking about it, and we decided that it would be really useful to have a foundational text that does basically that. That draws together the theory and the research, but we’re both very, very practical people. We want things that help faculty in their day-to-day practices, that they can take away immediately and use something from. So we had the Cross Academy that have those takeaways. You can use this in your class tomorrow, watch this video, take it to your class tomorrow, or take it to your class in an hour. But we wanted to provide the theory and the research that supports that and some of the broader practical tips. So that’s kind of how it came into being. That we wanted this broader foundational book to give the techniques some context, and to give it some foundation and some grounding in the work. So they do talk to each other. Like I said, the book is the foundation, and the techniques are the very practical: “Here’s how you carry it out.” Although the book has that too, the practice parts, but it’s bigger practice, it’s more like a general tip. Whereas one of the tips might be, “Use small groups in your teaching,” and then the techniques are, “Hey, use a jigsaw,” or “Hey, try a think, pair, share.” So they are connected that way.

John: And you describe those linkages in the book and have a table of how those techniques tie back into the chapters to make it easier to do that cross referencing.

Claire: Yes, that’s right. And we mention the techniques within the chapters where we find them particularly relevant. Many of them can cut across a lot of different chapters. But if you’re reading the chapter on collaborative learning, we mentioned techniques that are on the Cross Academy site that are focused on group learning, and so forth.

John: The title of the book begins with “Engaged Teaching.” How do you define engaged teaching?

Claire: That’s a really good question and I think engaged teaching is a really interesting and important concept right now. You read things in The Chronicle of Higher Education… faculty are disengaged, students are disengaged, etc, etc… I’m not sure I believe that exactly. I know we’re tired, right? [LAUGHTER] I know that we’ve dealt with some things through the pandemic, and it’s taken a toll. But I think the engagement is still there, and I think to be really effective teachers starts with being an engaged teacher. One leads to the other. Being engaged can get you to be effective. So I think of engaged teaching as two things, it’s a foundation and also a process. And the foundation is an intellectual foundation. And that involves the knowing what, the knowing why, and the knowing how, and that’s how each of our chapters is structured. Every chapter you’ll read there’s a “what this topics’ about,” “why this topic is important” (largely drawing on the research), and then “how you can do this particular thing in practice.” So that’s the foundation, the intellectual part of that. And the process is implementing that in key areas of teaching and the key steps that we have to undergo. And that is developing our own knowledge. It means planning a course, it means creating a positive learning climate and choosing and using the appropriate instructional methods. And it also involves continual improvement of our teaching practice. So it’s going through each of those phases of teaching and thinking through the knowing what, the knowing why, and the knowing how.

Rebecca: When I think about engaged teaching, and as you’re describing things, Claire, I also think about reflective practice and how they’re tied together. And the idea that you have to observe what you’re doing to be fully engaged, or take time to reflect on that, to really dig into the research or to know what techniques you want to look into, or to recognize that you’re struggling with something.

Claire: Right, and I think that’s a key point. And I think the idea of reflective practice is kind of an overarching idea of the book. But we also have a chapter on that, on being a reflective teacher and using reflective practice in your teaching. So absolutely, they are definitely related.

John: For our listeners who have not yet picked up a copy of the book, could you provide an overview of the different sections of the book?

Claire: Sure, part one is about foundations of teaching and learning. And in that we start with engaged and effective teaching, and what engaged teaching means, and how that can lead you to effective teaching. We also think through pedagogical content knowledge, and that’s a specialized kind of knowledge that faculty have that no one else has and it’s really important to develop that, and we think about how to develop that. We also talk about student learning, which I think is really important and it’s something we don’t always have formal instruction on in our graduate programs, or prior to teaching our courses. But we think it’s really essential to understand what your views of learning are, and how students learn, and what can be challenges to student learning, and then how they can overcome those challenges. So it is a very foundational: “Here’s teacher knowledge, here’s student learning, and here’s some things you need to know.” Part two is about planning, and that involves thinking about learning goals, objectives and outcomes, everybody’s favorite, right? But those are more and more essential in today’s society [LAUGHTER] they say. We all have to usually do those for all kinds of reasons. For accreditation purposes, because we have to post our syllabi, and other things, and because it is just a good idea to do. The research shows that it helps improve student learning. If you have this kind of clear path laid out and know where you’re going, it helps you know how to get there. We also, in that section, talk about assessing and grading, and we talk about visual elements in teaching which is, I think, an under-thought-through aspect of teaching, but I think it is important to the planning process. And that could be from your syllabi to your slide decks to your online LMS or whatever. There’s a lot of visual content that we share with students that I think we can improve and really think through and do a good job on. Part three is about the learning climate. We think about student engagement and motivation. We talk about community and how to build community in classes, and we also think through and talk about how to promote equity and inclusion in teaching. Part four is about instructional methods, and we cover three big ones there: interactive lecturing, discussion, and then also collaborative learning. And then finally, in part five, we focus on improvement. And we talk about reflective teaching and assessing and evaluating student teaching from beyond student opinions of instruction, right? Some other ways to go about it. We do talk about student opinions of instruction and some of the challenges with those, and some of the benefits with those, but also thinking beyond that, and other ways to assess and evaluate teaching. And then our final chapter is on the scholarship of teaching and learning, and how we can go that extra step in collecting data, understanding data, and sharing that information with other people.

Rebecca: So basically, the textbook that none of us had when we started teaching. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: That was kind of the idea. Yeah, absolutely. I teach a course on college teaching, and this is what I would want my students to know.

John: And it’s everything from the basic theory of course design, implementation of the course, and looking back and seeing what worked, and what didn’t work, and what you could do better. It’s pretty much everything faculty need to do to become an effective teacher, or an engaged teacher.

Claire: Maybe not everything, but we definitely try to cast a wide net and cover a lot of important topics that we hope will benefit people from thinking through a little bit more.

Rebecca: I really love that this particular text includes an introduction to the scholarship of teaching and learning too, because it’s an area that many of us might want to engage in, but are never really exposed to necessarily, at least early on. You might stumble upon it [LAUGHTER] as opposed to it being like formally introduced.

Claire: Right, right, and there’s so much good work in that area. I mean, that field is really growing, and they’re just more and more articles being published, and I think it’s wonderful because so many times teaching is very isolated. We go behind our closed doors, or we sit behind our screens, and we teach our courses, and it stops there, and our students go out, and that’s wonderful, and carry on. But we may have faculty teaching the same courses at other institutions who never hear anything about what we’re doing, and if we can contribute to that knowledge then we can all get better. It helps us all level up just a little bit to be able to hear what other people are doing, and what’s working, or what’s not working, and to have that data I just think is really great. So I hope people will look at that and think, “Gosh, I could do this. I could go out and do an article on my teaching and share that with others.” I think that would be a fabulous, fabulous outcome.

Rebecca: Can you describe to our listeners, maybe a couple of your favorite teaching techniques or other nuggets from the book?

Claire: That is such a hard question, it’s like choosing your favorite child. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: All right, just an example, just an example, it doesn’t have to be your favorite. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: No, no, I’m gonna give you a couple. I have used, I believe, every single technique we have on the Cross Academy site, and so I have personally field tested them all, and I think Elizabeth has as well. And there are some ones that I turn to over and over and over again. Quick writes are one, I think background knowledge probe is another one, case studies I use quite often. There are two that I turn to, I would say, more often than others. And one is the digital story, and that’s where students create videos, and in these videos they describe how their own personal lives connect to the course content. And I like to use these early in a course to help students introduce themselves to each other, and also because it puts them in a mind frame of understanding, “Oh hey, I do have important knowledge and experience that relates to this course,” and that’s pretty good. And I have seen students just produce really, really wonderful, fabulous stories, and it’s really heartening. They share things and it’s just really powerful to see these. So I do love that one. Another one that I really love is a personal learning environment, and that’s where people have digital resources that they can use to learn more about their course content later on going forward. And it’s basically they create a concept map that’s got nodes and ties to the resources that they could use, and it could be people, it could be websites, it could be books, it could be journals that they’re going to consult going forward. But I often like to end a course by having them develop a PLE where they can say how they can continue to learn about the course content going forward. So those are two of my favorites, I think.

Rebecca: Those are good favorites. I like those two.

Claire: Yeah I like them, they’re good. And they work well both online and on site. So they’ve got some flexibility that way.

Rebecca: Just mentally noting like, “Yes, yes, that would be a really good way to end my class.”

Claire: Right?

Rebecca: Yes, maybe I should update my syllabus. [LAUGHTER] Re-writing the assignment in my head as we’re talking. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Yeah, it’s one of my favorites, and they get really detailed with them. And they have all these mapping tools you can use like Popplet, or Buble.us, or whatever the newest programs are and they make just beautiful illustrations, and get really complicated maps, and do have very clear content sources that they can seek out in the future. And I think that’s great. And I love seeing the people that they choose. It’s really fun to see.

Rebecca: I imagine anything that doesn’t say “just Google it” sounds great. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Yeah, although sometimes Google does pop up on one of the resources in the nodes. They do mention Google and that’s fair, right?

Rebecca: As long as it’s not the only node. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: No, it’s not. It’s never the only one. So I’m teaching this college teaching course, and I had them do a PLE for this course and they have all kinds of people who were out there talking about teaching. They have all kinds of books that we’ve discussed in class and journals that focus on college teaching, conferences that are related to college teaching. It’s really elaborate and intricate. I never really specify, you could specify how many nodes and ties they have to do, but I never do and they have not yet disappointed. They’re always really very thoughtful and well done, and really nicely mapped out resources.

Rebecca: I’m sure as the instructor that gets to look at all of them your own really expands. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: It does, right, right? Yeah, that’s a good point. They have great suggestions. They really do.

John: I really liked the way you described bringing students into the discussion though, by thinking about how it applies to their life and building the relevance and salience of the material, and then preparing them at the end to become lifelong learners. So you’re really bringing students into the conversation in the discipline in a way that a lot of classes don’t.

Claire: Right, yeah. I think it’s really important, and so I’m teaching this course that I’ve mentioned a couple of times now, online this semester. And students are really great and really open, and there are a few things that I’m doing there that I think are interesting. One of the things that I do is, instead of having them submit assignments, they submit everything through the discussion board, and so they all see each other’s PLEs, they all see each other’s digital stories. It’s sort of like a gallery approach to assignments and I love it, you know? And nobody’s complained about it yet. So I think that’s good. I will say I’m teaching graduate students, I might have a different approach if I were doing undergrad. But at the graduate level, they seem very willing to share their information with each other. And they always say that they learn from looking at each other’s posts, that they always think of things that they would not have thought about if they had just been submitting online. And so I do think it’s very important to have the conversation, and the students involved in the direction. Another thing I think is interesting is that I do a questions and comments section on each module. And that’s all it says, if you have any questions or comments, post. They have no reason to post there, and the first time I tried that I thought, “No one’s ever going to use this,” but they do. They get in there and they post, they post thoughts about readings, they post questions to each other, they respond to each other’s questions. And I don’t get very involved in that unless there’s a question that hasn’t been answered, then I’ll answer it. But mostly, that’s a self sustaining thing where students are just self managing the board and helping each other out and talking to each other without the instructor telling them to, and without a lot of monitoring, so that’s fun. So yeah, students are fabulous. I love involving them. I love hearing from them, and I love giving them a space where they can share and talk to each other.

John: And it sounds like they’re quite engaged.

Claire: They are, they’re great, they’re great.

John: The use of a discussion board for students submitting assignments reminds me of an earlier discussion we had on a podcast with Darina Slattery. She called the activity E-tivities, where all the work in her course… it was also, I believe, a graduate course in education…, was done through discussion board submissions. And she also described some of the benefits that students receive from sharing each other’s work and that collaborative environment. So it seems like a really good technique that I should try too. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Right, It’s fabulous. I love it, I love it. I recently was revising my course with an instructional designer. He was like, “You know you’ve got all your assignments set up as discussion boards, right?” It’s like, “Yeah, yeah I know.” He’s like, “Do you think they’re going to be nervous about that?” I said, “Well, they don’t seem to be.” [LAUGHTER] They seem to be fine, just sharing away no one’s, like I said, ever really expressed discomfort either during the class, or through the SOI, it has only ever been very positive. I loved seeing what other people were doing, I learned from other people, it was great to be in that kind of dialogue with other people. And so it is an unusual approach, and I guess maybe it’s good to prepare people for it. But they seem to respond well, at least as far as I can tell.

John: But it’s also preparing people who are going to be teaching to work in an environment that’s collaborative so they’re not in their silos making the same mistakes that tens of thousands of people have made in the past, and being able to learn from each other and to share with each other. So, that seems like a really productive strategy.

Claire: It is a great strategy, at least for me and my students. I’m not saying it works in everybody’s class or for everybodys’ students, but it has been wonderful for me. The other thing I do in this course is that each week they create an assignment that’s called “create.” They have to create something, and it’s something for a final teaching dossier that they do. And so each week they produce something, like they might do a teaching philosophy, or they might outline a class session, or they might do something else. And one thing I’ve done this semester is ask them to offer each other improvements, right? Give everybody a constructive criticism. One compliment, one suggestion for making it even a tiny little bit better, because they then assemble all this work into a final portfolio. And so they’re helping each other out throughout the semester. I’m starting to see their portfolios come in, and it does make them stronger. They are doing really great work. They are all very constructive. They’re very kind to each other, and I had to nudge them a little bit at first and say, “No, you need to help them get it better, It will help their final grades if you can help them now.” And once they understood that they really locked into that and really started trying to help each other on their final projects, and that’s been really interesting and good to see as well.

Rebecca: I’ve been able to do something similar in using chat software. So right now I’m using Google Chat. But I’ve also used Slack to submit and share work.

Claire: Mmhmm.

Rebecca: And I find that my students are much more comfortable sharing in that environment where they can have written feedback and share written feedback, because they can contemplate what they say more carefully. And also, it makes a record of it, and they don’t lose it if we have a conversation about it. It’s like documented feedback. [LAUGHTER]

Claire: Yeah!

Rebecca: …or they can go back and reference, and those are things that students have said that they appreciate about an environment like that is that they’re nervous about speaking up about it, but they’re less nervous if they can plan a little bit more about how they approach it or talk about it in these chat environments. Which is funny because I think of chat as something being like, quick, [LAUGHTER] but they treat it more like a discussion board.

Claire: Right, right. Well, I’m doing it on the discussion board so I think it’s similar to what you’re doing. They do seem to appreciate it, they really do. And I think they’ve benefited from it, and I think through the process of offering constructive feedback, they see things they can improve in their own writing as well. So they’re helping somebody else out, and they’re helping themselves out, and I think that’s really fabulous, and it’s so exciting seeing their final projects come in, and how they have taken them and improved them over the semester. It’s really gratifying.

John: I’m having students do something similar, where they’re providing feedback on each other’s work. And in our last class meeting, one of the students said, “I wish the comments contained more constructive criticism.” And hearing it from another student, I think, has helped quite a bit in improving the quality of the feedback, because I asked them to provide constructive feedback to each other, but they were very reluctant to do that in the first round or two. But when other students are saying, “You know, I wish we could get more of this type of feedback.” They picked an example of that, and it seems to be making a difference.

Claire: Yeah, absolutely. It’s so gratifying. You’re just like, “Yeah, y’all are doing it, this is great.”

Rebecca: Along those lines, John, today in my class, we did an electronic whiteboard activity. I teach web design so we were critiquing a website. So I gave them a link to look at, and then to use sticky notes essentially to provide feedback. And then what I did was ask them, “Was this actionable feedback?” And then they were like, “No, not really. I don’t know what this means, I don’t know what this means.” It’s like, “Exactly,” [LAUGHTER] and I heard all kinds of clicks go on. So I think moving forward, as we moved on in the class period today, it was amazing how much better and more clear [LAUGHTER] the comments were, once they realized how vague they were when we took this thing that was outside of us to look at.

Claire: That’s great.

John: So now this book, Engaged Teaching, was written during a period of pandemic. And also I believe there’s been some developments on the K. Patricia Cross Academy during this period. Did the pandemic influence the development of these two projects?

Claire: That’s a great question, John. I think the answer is most certainly, yes. And on the Cross Academy side, I think it’s a very clear connection. We knew that we wanted to develop videos on how to do them online, eventually. So we had our 50 techniques, and we thought, “Yeah, you know what would be really good, and helpful and useful, is if we eventually, down the road sometime, created short videos on… here’s how you would do this online, either asynchronous or synchronous.” And we were kind of going along our merry way and the pandemic hit, and we realized that needed to happen a lot faster than we had originally planned. And so we sort of front loaded that, and got videos out really, really quickly, all things considered. And it was challenging because we do our filming in California, and we couldn’t travel. So there was no going there to do videos, we couldn’t be in a room with a bunch of other people trying to film those videos because, at that time, at least originally, we weren’t real sure how the spread was happening. And we didn’t know a lot about how to contain it, and I don’t think it would be great to be mask on those videos anyway. So we went to voiceovers and did a lot of work through voiceovers and accompanying footage through that, and so that shifted as well. I think as far as the book goes, I think it shifted our focus just a little bit to that concept engagement a little bit more, because we started to realize how important engagement is for faculty, for the life of faculty, for successful teaching, for all of those things. I think maybe initially it started out as the foundational textbook, and then I think we realized the importance of weaving the engagement piece through that, and thinking through, what does it mean to be an engaged teacher? And how do we engage in this work at any time, right? Especially when we’re struggling and we’re tired, and we’re doing things we don’t know how to do. I think that just became a lot more prominent. It was always there, but I think, like the online videos, the plans were there, they got frontlined. With the engagement, it was always there, but it got spotlighted or forefronted and a lot more

John: Is there some type of foundation funding the development of the K. Patricia Cross Academy? Or where does the funding and support for this come from?

Claire: So the funding for the Cross Academy has been 100% private donations, and anonymous donations to this point. So it has been completely funded by the generosity of people who wanted to support this work, to make this project an open project, and not a paid subscription or anything like that. We wanted it to be open and we found people who thought this was a good idea and were willing to support us from that. We could always use more funding, right? And so in part, this book can help with that because all the royalties that we receive from the book are going directly to support the K. Patricia Cross Academy. We’re supported by the SocialGood Foundation, and all proceeds are going directly to the SocialGood Foundation. The SocialGood Foundation is earmarking them for the K. Patricia Cross Academy, and so all of the money will go directly to support the Cross Academy for helping us continue to develop content, blogs, and videos, and continue sharing that information.

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

Claire: Yeah, that’s a great question. And there is always something next at the Cross Academy. We are continually trying to develop that site, and what is in the works right now is a new phase where we are developing an activity bank for college faculty to work through. And these activities will help faculty reflect on their own current views on the different aspects of college teaching in the book that we’ve just published, discuss their ideas with other faculty, and create teaching materials that can help them in their own classrooms, and also develop products that could help them in promotion, and tenure and merit reviews. So that is coming I hope soon. I guess it’ll be 2023, but that is the next phase that we are working on.

Rebecca: That sounds awesome.

John: It does.

Claire: We’re really excited about it. I hope it’s going to be useful for people and really give them the opportunity to engage with engaged teaching a little bit more, to engage with the Cross Academy in ways that can help them improve their teaching… and students’ learning by extension.

John: Well, thank you. It’s always great talking to you, and you’ve given us a lot to think about and our listeners a lot to think about. And we strongly encourage people to pick up a copy of Engaged Teaching. It’s a great book. I haven’t read through all of it, but I’ve read through a big chunk of it in the last few days since my copy came in.

Claire: Well, thank you, and thanks, John and Rebecca for having me. I have totally enjoyed being here, thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. It’s been lovely.

Rebecca: And we look forward to seeing the next round of materials that come out because I know we’ll want to share them.

Claire: Great. Thanks very much.

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: Editing assistance provided by Anna Croyle, Annalyn Smith, and Joshua Vega.

[MUSIC]