461. Postdocs

On past episodes of this podcast, we’ve discussed several stages of the career path for academics including the transition from grad school to faculty and decisions to move to administrative positions. In this episode, Alark Joshi and Victoria Hallinan join us to discuss the role that a postdoc may play in an academic’s career trajectory.

Alark is a professor of Computer Science at the University of San Francisco. His work focuses on data visualization literacy and strategies for inclusive computer science education. Victoria is the Program Director for Professional Development in the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at Yale University. Alark and Victoria are the co-authors of Postdoc: How to Navigate Your Career After Grad School, which has recently been released by Johns Hopkins Press.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: On past episodes of this podcast, we’ve discussed several stages of the career path for academics including the transition from grad school to faculty and decisions to move to administrative positions. In this episode, we discuss the role that a postdoc may play in an academic’s career trajectory.

[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 Alark Joshi and Victoria Hallinan. Alark is a professor of Computer Science at the University of San Francisco. His work focuses on data visualization literacy and strategies for inclusive computer science education. Victoria is the Program Director for Professional Development in the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at Yale University. Alark and Victoria are the co-authors of Postdoc: How to Navigate Your Career After Grad School, which has recently been released by Johns Hopkins Press. Welcome, Alark and Victoria.

Alark: Thank you for having us. We’re excited to be on the podcast.

Victoria: Yeah, thank you so much. Really looking forward to chatting with you today.

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

Alark: Yes, Earl Gray, lifelong drinker. So thank you for asking.

Rebecca: Nice. How about you, Victoria?

Victoria: Yeah, I have a honey chai turmeric, which has all the warming spices of a chai, but none of the caffeine. So perfect for the afternoon for me, at least.

John: And along that theme, I have a Medley of Mint by Twinings, one of their pyramid type bags of tea, because I’ve already had four or five doses of caffeine earlier today, and I probably want to sleep at some point tonight.

Rebecca: On the opposing side, [LAUGHTER] I have a English afternoon tea, a little boost this afternoon.

Victoria: Lovely.

John: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your new book on postdocs. Can you tell us a little bit about the origin of this book project?

Alark: Sure. So most of your listeners are probably familiar with the term “postdoc,” but for anyone who’s not, we thought we’d give a brief explanation. So the National Postdoc Association defines a postdoc as an individual holding a doctoral degree who is engaged in a temporary period of mentored research and/or scholarly training for the purpose of acquiring professional skills needed to pursue a career path of their choosing. Now that’s quite a mouthful, and I want to highlight “temporary period” and “acquiring skills” as keywords in that definition because we address them in the book, and we will definitely revisit them in this interview. Now let me tell you a little bit about the origin story of this book. In 2023, I spent the summer working at Yale University, where I connected with Victoria. As a former postdoc. I conducted a few workshops for postdocs about how to apply for faculty positions, how do you survive and maybe even thrive, dare I say, in your first year [LAUGHTER] as a new academic member of the faculty, and we also touched on navigating difficult situations in your research group or unit as a postdoc that they might face. And as both of us worked with postdocs, we found that there seemed to be a hidden curriculum about transitioning out of a postdoc into either a faculty position or getting that first industry job, or maybe even transitioning into an academic administration or a university administration job. And so we found that postdocs felt isolated at times. They sometimes struggled to navigate difficult situations. Many of them were international postdocs, and so they struggled with challenges with their visa, even trying to find their first housing or settling into a new lab or even a new country. And so both Victoria and I thought we really wanted to instill this sense of agency among the postdocs. We wanted to remind them of the importance of community, whether it’s inside or outside their research group at the university level within their communities, and also emphasize the value of building a mentoring team to support them as they apply for and transition into their next career step. And so, after all of that, we decided to address these issues and write this book.

Rebecca: A book to solve some hidden curriculum issues [LAUGHTER] is always a good start. You started hinting at some of the ideas and topics that are addressed in the book. Can you give us a quick overview of some of those key things?

Victoria: Yeah, I’m happy to supply some spoilers for the book [LAUGHTER] as you go to pick up your copy. So we first of all really frame the book not just around themes or topics, but also thinking chronologically about your stages as a postdoc. So for the first chapters, we were thinking about someone who’s considering a postdoc or is about to settle in and start their postdoc. So these two chapters focus on how can you be productive in your new environment? Get your feet under you and start thinking not only about how am I going to fulfill the responsibilities and expectations of the role I was hired for, but also really reflecting on what do you personally want to achieve here, so some self-assessment, self-reflection, and goal setting. And then in the second chapter, what we want to highlight is the strong complements to focusing on your professional development, which is to find your community and your sense of belonging. You may be in a new institution, a new country, and a new person who is now possibly in charge of much of your success here and beyond, in the form of this faculty mentor you have as a postdoc. So we wanted to make sure that this was front and center in this first part of the book. So then we segue into okay, now you’re here and settled in. And when we were looking at different postdoc roles, many of them address areas around research, which may include grant seeking or maintaining grants and writing and publications, and that many postdoc positions may or may not have teaching incorporated into them, but certainly, you can seek out teaching opportunities. So we focus on how do you address these many myriad of opportunities that you may have, and aim to move forward and make progress in your own personal and professional development therein. So equally important here, however, is what you may encounter as a postdoc along the way, and which Awas starting to allude to talking about the book broadly, that many postdocs may feel isolated or may encounter challenges in their roles for a variety of reasons, either personal or also depending on who they’re working with, how the research goes, how the funding goes, as another potential challenge. So we dedicate an entire chapter to navigating difficult situations as a postdoc, where we offer some potential case scenarios in the hope that someone reading this will then be thinking about: “okay what if I encounter this,” so that they can work on addressing the challenge or remediating the situation as soon as possible before it escalates further or builds further. So then the second half of the book really focuses on that next career step because, as Alark mentioned, a postdoc role should be honing your skills, but also really thinking about not only what you want to do next, but how to cultivate the kinds of experiences and skills you need to successfully pursue that next job wherever it might be. So many PhDs start a postdoc interested in pursuing a tenure-track faculty role afterwards, so we have a chapter all about how to understand what faculty roles look like, their variety, and what that means in terms of teaching, service, research expectations, so to help a postdoc really understand what those options are and which ones might be the best ones for them to pursue based on their interests. And we furthermore and became increasingly relevant as we were writing the book that we really want to encourage postdocs to consider a wide variety of potential career steps. So, as part of that, we have a chapter dedicated to thinking about non-faculty roles, which might be in industry or government and policy, it might be in academia, like Alark mentioned, and maybe pursuing something that is more administrative or that may have a lot of the same responsibilities as a faculty role, but just outside of that tenure context. So, for instance, at my institution, I see an increasing number of research scientist roles, which are faculty roles, but not that same tenure-track approach, and have both the benefits and drawbacks of some of those differences. And then finally, the big takeaway I think throughout this book is that both the postdoc and that next step should not be this solo endeavor.

And throughout, we really want to emphasize engaging with resources and seeking out help, and that this is not something you should be trying to do alone. That, as a PhD, you are frequently trying to define yourself through difference, that you have this niche area of research, or you are the best at this, or most knowledgeable about that, and we think that that can sometimes give PhDs a false sense of I should be able to succeed on my own or with very little help, and that just because you are this amazing scholar and teacher, we want to note that throughout your career, during your postdoc role, and afterwards as you move on to that next role, it is about who you go to for help building things like a mentoring team, but also using the resources at your disposal. So the final two chapters really emphasize that. The penultimate chapter talks about how to survive and thrive in your first year as a faculty member, which we were realizing similarly had a big hidden curriculum behind it as well, and finally thinking about navigating the system of academia as an international postdoc with a deluge of information about once more how to connect with resources, but also how to think about everything from the American tax system, health insurance, and also h ow acclimating to a new culture and expectations, especially in professional and academic contexts, takes time and does mean you do need to seek others’ perspectives, engage with others who can help you, and ask questions.

Alark: One of the things I wanted to add was that actually, while we both have a lot of experience with this, we interviewed many different individuals for each of the chapters, and so we actually have 20 interviews that have been transcribed, edited, and added to each chapter. So not 20 per chapter, but 20 total in the book. [LAUGHTER] So I feel like that really was one of the most fun activities that we did, and we really enjoyed interviewing people who are in academia, industry, as well as academic administration, and we added those interviews in each of these chapters.

John: When I was in grad school back in the last century, postdocs were relatively rare in economics, but my son was working on his PhD about 20 years or so ago in economics, and he talked about the growth of postdocs. And in fact, his wife, who’s also an economist, took a postdoc position right after grad school. Have we seen growth in postdocs in many disciplines?

Alark: Yeah, definitely. Actually, according to the National Postdoctoral Association’s 2023 poll, there are more than 72,000 postdocs now in the United States, and so while there has been an overall upward trend in the number of postdocs being hired at research labs and university labs in the United States, especially after World War II, we are currently seeing a downturn in the number of postdocs that are being hired due to the lack of funding at the federal and state levels, as well as due to the visa challenges that international postdocs are facing. So that’s just what the current situation is. Additionally, while these positions were initially supposed to be only two- to three-year temporary positions, like I said earlier, they have now become longer in duration, with some postdocs taking up to five or even six years. And so these trends may be making some PhDs reluctant to pursue a postdoc or even an academic role, since the journey to a full-time, well-paying position is just getting longer.

Rebecca: What fields are postdocs most common in?

Victoria: Yeah, so it’s difficult to give precise good numbers, but it’s definitely historically been more STEM, and especially biomedical, dominated, though I have been seeing some more kind of normalization of postdocs in social sciences and humanities. So, for instance, John, thinking about your son and your daughter-in-law, see an increasing number of PhDs looking at at least and potentially pursuing a postdoc, even if they are outside of biomedical fields or STEM fields. But there are some groups within the United States that do regularly survey the populations related to their disciplines to understand what are PhDs in their fields doing next, and that includes understanding how many postdocs there are. So the National Institutes for Health, for instance, puts out a regular report, and in 2024 they said there are 45,000 postdocs in biomedical research that they were kind of keeping track of, and in 2024, the National Science Foundation similarly did a survey of graduate students and postdocs in science and engineering, and they were able to find almost 70,000 postdocs, the majority of which were in STEM, broadly speaking, but 14% in engineering. But these numbers obviously miss out on postdocs in social sciences like economics, humanities, arts, and related fields like law and management. So, to give you a sense, at Yale University we have about 1,500 postdocs, and about 900 of those 1,500 are in our School of Medicine or Public Health or Nursing. So, likely doing biomedical research specifically. Another 200 or so are in STEM outside of biomed, and then we’ve got 96 in engineering, 68 in social sciences, and the final 90 or so are in humanities, law, we have two in architecture, management, or in interdisciplinary centers. So postdoc position really varies in terms of not just discipline, but what you may be doing as that postdoc role. Likely you’re doing some kind of research, but there are also postdoc positions focused on pedagogy, education, teaching, and I’m not just talking about classroom teaching in higher education, but we, for instance, have an art gallery that has postdocs who do curatorial and educational roles around public history, art, and thinking about more K through 12, as well as other populations.

John: What are some of the benefits to pursuing a postdoc as part of your career path?

Alark: Having actually done a postdoc myself, I think pursuing a postdoc is a fantastic idea. I think, like I said earlier, traditionally a postdoc has been a time for an individual to really get more research experience, get some more teaching experience, and maybe even get some experience mentoring undergraduate or graduate students after they finish their PhD, and so it is supposed to be a training-oriented position to help individuals determine your career path going forward and make some strides along that direction to successfully pursue that path. I think it can really be an opportunity to develop the skills and experiences you need to identify that kind of career and maybe even think about the kind of workplace you hope to join when you are done with your postdoc. Many of us, I definitely, was obsessed with my doctoral dissertation. So when I finished, I was able to broaden my research agenda, work on different skills that I wanted to acquire during my postdoc, and you can acquire those skills either in your research lab or even through maybe leadership at the postdoc association or other volunteering opportunities on campus or in your community. And given how the postdoc position is supposed to be a mentored experience to support your next career step, it’s definitely an opportunity to explore alternative career paths as well as expand your professional network. Like we’ve said earlier, many postdocs think that a tenure-track position at a research 1 university is the only path forward after your postdoc, but we talk about this in the book that that’s one option, but there are many different options, even just in academia and obviously industry and administration. In this book, we specifically advise postdocs to develop a mentoring team for support instead of depending on only one or two mentors. Your mentoring team may include a mentor from, let’s say, the Center for Teaching and L earning, who can offer you advice on improving your teaching skills, especially if you have had no experience teaching during your PhD. As someone who served on a hiring committee, we definitely look at someone who has had some teaching experience more favorably than someone who just has TA experience as a teaching assistant. Similarly, you might have a faculty mentor, maybe who’s not your postdoc advisor, but someone either from your department or maybe even from another university who can serve as a sounding board for research discussions. Maybe you have a mentor from the writing center at your university who can provide feedback on even things like your research and teaching statements as you apply for faculty positions, and they may even be able to give you feedback on your research proposals that you might use for fellowship applications. The goal is to kind of add additional mentors as your career develops and get that feedback that you need as you continue to evolve and grow your career.

Rebecca: As a student considering a postdoc, what are some of the things they should think about or take into account as they make a decision about what to pursue?

Victoria: I’d say certainly not to pursue a postdoc purely out of inertia. And what I don’t mean to say by that is that you can and should pursue a postdoc if you want to better figure out what you want your next career step to be in terms of a full-time position after your doctorate, but that going in with really thinking about what could this postdoc position do for me, because they are frequently listed as more traditional job advertisements, they may appear as something where okay, this is basically me having a job that will hold me over for a few years. But while that mentality can certainly help you grow certain kinds of skills, what we really advocate for in terms of pursuing a postdoc role is to see what it can do for you, not just in terms of fulfilling the responsibilities and expectations outlined in a job advertisement for a postdoc role. And there are of course postdoc roles that you really make your own and are defined that way. But many of them, especially in biomedical research, for instance, you are coming in to help with a larger project that may already be defined, for example. So you really need to go in thinking, yes, I will be able to grow these certain research skills and content knowledge. But what else? What else could I do if I pursue this kind of role? So first and foremost, just picking up on what Alark was already saying around having a mentoring team you consult with as you think about that next career step as a graduate student, that they should be able to give you some perspective around what a postdoc could and could not do for you from their experiences, wherever they may be in their careers and ways that they work within your discipline or beyond. And aside from considering, do I want to pursue a postdoc generally? As you start zooming in on which ones and where, that really understanding what are the resources available at that institution in terms of not just research skills but also mentorship. What kinds of faculty are there, and what kinds of not just research do they do, but do they have awards in teaching or mentorship? Is there mentorship workshops available for postdocs, for faculty members, and to also think about what resources there are for you to develop skills you might want to explore further or gain more mastery over, like teaching and professional development skills more broadly speaking, everything from communication to negotiating your first job offer or what have you. And of course, very important when you are considering a postdoc role is who your faculty mentor will be. So when you reach that interview stage, remembering that of course this interview is not just about them understanding if you are a good fit for what they’re looking for in a postdoc, but are they a good fit for you in terms of, once more, not just the research and knowledge that you would gain, but also in terms of helping you grow and pursue that next career step, and to do so in a way that you feel supported and that your postdoc role includes professional development, includes career exploration, and it’s not just something you’re trying to fit in on the side or excluding your faculty mentor in that process, but rather ideally as a joint endeavor that you’re all on board with. So, understanding are your expectations for the role and support you need aligned, and that beyond that, really even at the interview stage, asking concrete questions about resources. So this is everything from you can ask about moving expenses. Is that something that can be afforded as part of hiring you? But also, will you have support for teaching if you want to engage with it, if it’s not part of that postdoc role? Will you be able to attend conferences, have opportunities to manage your own project. Really asking specific questions about what you can do and what you would have support for, to get a sense of what will this faculty member be like as a mentor. And finally, as part of that, we really emphasize that it’s important before you start this role, and once more, ideally at the interview stage, to identify the culture of this unit you’re joining, whether it’s a lab or a department, a research group. Are there any red flags? And one of the ways that we think you can help understand this is to talk to postdocs who are alumni from that unit and/or current postdocs. Sometimes research groups might have graduate students or postdocs or other folks who are engaged in the research together that you could also similarly reach out to. And I would even in an interview ask the faculty mentor, “Hey, what kinds of roles have your postdocs moved on to? Can I talk to some of them?” Though certainly searching on LinkedIn or elsewhere can also yield some results too. But seeing how your faculty mentor responds to that kind of question might give you a good clue of what kind of mentor they’ll be. If they’re excited and say, “Oh yes, so and so went on and did this, and this person went over here,” that also gives you some good information and also gives you a sense of the kinds of support you might receive as a postdoc. And finally, of course, thinking before pursuing a postdoc about: Do you have other factors and priorities to keep in mind? Do you need to be in a specific geographic location or cost of living? Do you have particular family needs, either in terms of caring for family you currently have, or many postdocs, depending on when they started their PhD, might be at a stage where they may be considering starting a family, for instance. So, understanding will this postdoc role be supportive of that? A nd once more, what resources are available for having a family, for leave, and for other things at your institution can really help you zoom in on which options are best, but also set yourself up for success in that postdoc role.

John: So far, the discussion has mostly been about the benefits and the factors that individuals considering going for a postdoc should take into account, but from the other side of the transaction, what are the benefits of a postdoc to the host institution considering providing postdoc positions.

Victoria: Honestly, some institutions may see postdocs simply as good, cheap labor. That they are experts. They have highly refined skills. They can do a lot to advance a research agenda. So it is important for someone thinking about a postdoc as a role for themselves to consider how they would get the most out of this opportunity. Ideally, an institution is seeing what I see when I think about postdocs – that they are able to advance research in such a wonderful way that they are making us better every day. That they also promote excellent teaching, as well as mentoring young scholars, and I think about mentoring and teaching as a two-way endeavor. So even if this postdoc position does not entail teaching, in your interaction as a postdoc with those you mentor and helping them think about themselves as future mentors and teachers, as well as your own faculty member, that they, in working with you and seeing your approach to mentorship, teaching, training others, are no doubt hopefully consciously, but also subconsciously learning from you about different approaches, perspectives, and styles there. And finally, overall, just what postdocs contribute to an institution’s community. We have an incredibly vibrant postdoc population at Yale University, and they are able to not just diversify our perspectives on what it means to do research, teaching, and learning, but really make our community so much more thoughtful, strategic, and to really be thinking about okay, who is included here? How are we moving things forward? but doing so in a supportive way and thinking about how to move everyone forward.

Rebecca: This conversation is leading me to wonder a little bit about what the interview process for a postdoc looks like in comparison to a faculty position for those that might be working with postdocs or might be considering postdocs but have no idea what that looks like.

Victoria: Yeah, I think we both probably have a little perspective on this. I can share from my side that the interview process can diverge wildly depending on the nature of the funding for the postdoc role, the faculty member, and the discipline. So, for instance, you might be able to apply to a postdoc role that, as I mentioned earlier, looks like a traditional job advertisement, asks for some basics around curriculum vitae, maybe a cover letter, but then has maybe an interview before hiring. There are also postdoc roles that, depending on their funding and how they function have more of a larger amount of materials required along the lines of a faculty role, and especially if it involves teaching, for instance, maybe there will be a component of the interview that entails a teaching demo, or certainly talking about your teaching and everything in between, really. And the final thing I’ll say before, very curious to hear Alark’s perspective on this, is finding a postdoc role is not always looking up and finding a job advertisement at an institution or that someone’s posted on LinkedIn or in other venues. But a lot of times we encourage graduate students, particularly if they are in certain disciplines, to actually go to an institution’s website, look up their discipline, and find faculty who are doing research they are interested in, and cold emailing them or asking your mentoring team to help connect you if they know this person, introducing yourself and saying, “I would love to join your research group. Here’s what I’m doing. Would you be able to hire me in a postdoc role?” And that is very different than a tenure-track faculty role application process in the U.S. for instance, or maybe any kind of application process someone who’s a PhD has done before. So something that having that mentoring team to talk to, saying that I’m interested in a postdoc role? What does that look like in our discipline? And sometimes it is you find the job ad, but sometimes it is you cold email someone and hope that they are willing to respond to that email. But Alark, I’m curious what you think here or what you’ve experienced.

Alark: Yeah, I mean my experience was very similar in some ways, where I had to submit a cover letter and a CV just by email to the professor who had the postdoc position. But then once we had a phone conversation, then I traveled up to New Haven, and then I had my research presentation. So they had me give a research presentation to a bigger research group, which had four professors, all of their PhD students and postdocs, and so there was about an hour’s presentation with some Q&A. That was followed by meeting with individual members of the specific research group that I was joining. So there were about three to four meetings with like students and postdocs, and then one meeting with the actual advisor who was going to hire me. This was done by lunchtime, and then we all went out to lunch as a group. We hung out, talked about other things other than just research topics. And by the end of lunch, I think that was the end of it. So it was like a, I guess, a half faculty interview kind of a thing where we didn’t really go all the way in terms of submitting teaching statements and research statements, but there was still an opportunity to get to know other people in the lab other than just the primary investigator.

John: So postdocs are in a somewhat unique position in the university where they’re somewhere between being a student and a full-time member of the community. What are some of the challenges that this might cause for people who are working as a postdoc?

Alark: Postdocs face a variety of different challenges, and one of those is lacking a sense of belonging due to the fact that even if you are a local student, you might just be focused on doing research in your lab, maybe even by yourself for many hours a day, and that can be very draining and frustrating sometimes, because as we all know, research doesn’t always work out the way we want. There are things like lack of institutional support. You mentioned this, John, that you are neither a student, you are neither a faculty member or a permanent staff member, so you are kind of in between. And different units at the university level don’t really know how to handle postdocs, and so sometimes they can fall through the gaps. There’s also a bit of a lack of understanding of their particular professional needs because of this in-between status. Additionally, the pay and benefits can be a lot lower. That can be frustrating for postdocs. We’ve talked a little bit about how majority of the postdocs are international and they face challenges around adjusting to a new lab institution, maybe even a new country, navigating the variety of different visa challenges, and even just identifying different cultural norms that you might not be familiar with when you go to a completely new country. On top of that, a lot of postdocs success and satisfaction depends on their faculty mentors. Like that one-on-one meeting that might happen once a week or once every two weeks, and you start thinking like, “oh, this is going really badly” if that relationship isn’t going well, and so you kind of have all your eggs in one basket. Another major challenge is actually related to transitioning into a role where you really need to advocate for yourself and promote yourself for the very first time. You haven’t done this before, so if you compare that with grad school, postdocs often have to be much more intentional about finding peers, about building networks, and even just seeking out professional development opportunities. You might think that “okay, I really need to get better at data analysis, and I need to find resources on campus that offer these lessons or workshops,” and so kind of seek out these opportunities yourself. These things don’t just come to you as they may have when you are an undergrad or a grad student.

Rebecca: One of the things that you both mentioned is the potential for a postdoc to include teaching as part of that work. Can you talk a little bit about what factors one might consider and whether or not to add teaching as part of that experience.

Victoria: Yeah. So if if teaching is not included in your postdoc itself, and you are at all interested in teaching as part of your next career step, whether you maybe are set on a faculty role or if you’re at a stage where you’re just trying to figure out is teaching maybe for me, and once more, thinking diversely there, faculty role in higher ed versus also considering other roles in academia that may entail teaching, thinking about the K through 12 space, or once more really understanding, do I want this as part of my job, seeking out teaching opportunities while you’re a postdoc can be really helpful. And if you do realize as part of exploring teaching that this is something you want as part of or the foundation of your next role, it can obviously give you the edge when you’re applying for a job if you have some teaching experience. But the challenge here is how do you fit this in if it’s not part of your postdoc role. So there’s a few different ways that we talk about this in the book. You could, for instance, teach at the institution your postdoc role is hosted at. And first of all, I should add the caveat, as a postdoc office administrator that always double check that you can teach if you have a visa or if you are funded a particular way that may restrict whether or not you can teach, or there may be a process to help you teach at the institution that is also hosting your postdoc. But if you are trying to find something at your institution, similarly thinking creatively here, talk to the chair of the department of your discipline, or find out if there’s something like an undergraduate director to talk to about teaching and opportunities. But you may also need to explore outside of the department that your discipline is housed in. So you might need to look at interdisciplinary centers, for instance, or an institution may have a first-year seminar program for incoming first-year students, where they’re looking for people from all kinds of different disciplines. But that might not pop up if you just look to see are there teaching opportunities in biology at my institution. And some institutions may even have teaching opportunities in the summer, or may have opportunities within the town or city that the institution’s in. I’m thinking about programs like Pathways to STEM or Pathways to Humanities, which are again opportunities that might entail teaching an entire course. But also, the final thing we talk about in terms of teaching opportunities is if you don’t have the time or don’t have the ability to teach a full-fledged course, let’s say, that there’s different scales of teaching opportunities, so that you can find opportunities to teach once more at other institutions or as an adjunct doing a full course, but you can also find opportunities to guest lecture at your institution or elsewhere. Now that we all, for better or for worse, are fully functional on Zoom, it’s easier to seek out guest lecturing opportunities as well and get experience there. You could lead seminars for your department, either based on your research or based on professional development skills, and that many institutions will also have a group called a postdoc association, which I should have mentioned much much sooner. But this is usually a group that is run for and by postdocs. It’s a wonderful place to again find that sense of community and belonging Alark was mentioning to stem senses of isolation, have some place to vent potential frustrations, but also opportunities for professional development, either taking on a leadership role or running something like professional development sessions, or even opportunities for postdocs to talk about their research or practice teaching in such a way that they now have the experience, and also something to talk about when they apply for a teaching role and are asked to provide a teaching statement or to talk about their approach, their pedagogy, and what have you. And finally, wanting to very much highlight, we recommend all postdocs, whether or not you are seriously thinking about teaching as part of your career, to engage with your center for teaching and learning. This can be an opportunity to grow your pedagogical approach, but also to recognize where you’re using teaching and may not even be realizing it.

So you may have the opportunity to mentor undergraduate students in your postdoc role, and this you can use when you put together your teaching statement if you’re applying to a faculty role, for instance, talking about how you approached this, how you were able to, like in a classroom, bring your expectations, your values, and then engage with this student or students to understand where they were coming from, their lived and learned experiences, and by the end of your mentoring relationship, that they’ve moved forward in their learning, their skills development, and their understanding of your discipline and their desire to potentially pursue it in their undergraduate or graduate studies and beyond.

John: We always end with the question, “What’s next? So, what’s next for you?

Alark: So, inspired by our podcast and others, we are actually starting a limited series podcast called Postdoc Matters. The goal of the podcast is to offer advice by interviewing individuals from industry, academia, as well as academic administration who have worked as postdocs and navigated some of the issues that we have discussed in the book. We have already interviewed a few individuals from the humanities who highlight how a postdoc can help you expand your skills and help you get your next full-time position. We’ve interviewed a couple of industry professionals who have transitioned from academia into industry and who offer advice on how postdocs can showcase their skills to land a job in industry, and many more. Each interview is aligned with one or more chapters in the book, and we address that in each episode as we chat with our guests. So we are very excited. We’ll slowly release some of these episodes and see where it goes.

John: Excellent.

Alark: Hopefully, it’ll be out soon. We are just banking a few episodes because we know once the semester starts, it’s going to be nuts. And so we just wanted to have about five to seven episodes, and then we’ll release them one at a time.

John: And Victoria, what’s next for you?

Victoria: Mostly just getting through the next few weeks, and the book coming out is my what’s next.

John: Well, thank you. It’s been great talking to you. And this is an area that we haven’t really talked about on the podcast before, and it is an area that people should consider as they’re moving through their educational path.

Alark: Thank you very much, John and Rebecca. This feels surreal to me because I listen to your podcast every week, and so to be on one of these episodes is a dream come true. Thank you. [LAUGHTER]

Victoria: Yeah, I was telling all my CTL colleagues… I used to work at the Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning at Yale, and they’re incredibly jealous. [LAUGHTER]

[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]

455. Transformative Coaching

Higher ed has become an increasingly complex and challenging environment to work in. In this episode, Susan Hrach and Kitty Maynard join us to discuss the role trained coaches can play in supporting agency, resilience, and career growth for college employees.

Susan is the author of Minding Bodies: How Physical Space, Sensation, and Movement Affect Learning. She’s served as a Fulbright Canada Distinguished Research Chair, and recently appeared on the TEDx stage in Columbus, Georgia. Kitty is the Director of the Teaching and Scholarship Hub at the University of Richmond. Her higher ed career began as a Professor of French Studies, and she has taken on leadership roles in faculty development at Washington College and Virginia Commonwealth University before moving to the University of Richmond. She is the author of Reveries of Community: Epic in the Age of Henri IV and co-editor of Polemic and Literature Surrounding the French Wars of Religion. Susan and Kitty have both received training from, and are members of, the International Coaching Federation. They are also two of the editors of Transformative Coaching for Faculty and Staff in Higher Education.

Kristin Croyle, a psychologist and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Engineering, fills in for Rebecca in this episode.

Show Notes

  • Hrach, S. (2021). Minding bodies: How physical space, sensation, and movement affect learning. West Virginia University Press.
  • Maynard, K. (2017). Reveries of Community: French Epic in the Age of Henri IV, 1572–1616. Northwestern University Press.
  • Kendrick, J., & Maynard, K. S. (Eds.). (2019). Polemic and literature surrounding the French Wars of Religion (Vol. 68). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
  • Rice, K. G., Hrach, S., Linder, K. E., & Maynard, K. S. (Eds.). (2025). Transformative Coaching for Faculty and Staff in Higher Education: Powerful Tools to Address Institutional Challenges. Taylor & Francis.
  • Little, D., & Palmer, M. S. (2011). Coaching-Based Framework for Individual Consultations. To Improve the Academy, 29(1), 102-115.
  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Bowers, C. A., Carlson, C. E., Doherty, S. L., Evans, J., & Hall, J. (2023). Workplace coaching: A meta-analysis and recommendations for advancing the science of coaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
  • Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277.
  • Reynolds, M. (2026). Coach the person, not the problem: A guide to using reflective inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  • Pope-Ruark, R. (2022). Unraveling faculty burnout: Pathways to reckoning and renewal. JHU Press.
  • International Coaching Federation
  • ICF coach finding tool

Transcript

John: Higher ed has become an increasingly complex and challenging environment to work in. In this episode, we explore the role trained coaches can play in supporting agency, resilience, and career growth for college employees.

[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 Susan Hrach and Kitty Maynard. Susan is the author of Minding Bodies: How Physical Space, Sensation, and Movement Affect Learning. She’s served as a Fulbright Canada Distinguished Research Chair, and recently appeared on the TEDx stage in Columbus, Georgia. Kitty is the Director of the Teaching and Scholarship Hub at the University of Richmond. Her higher ed career began as a Professor of French Studies, and she has taken on leadership roles in faculty development at Washington College and Virginia Commonwealth University before moving to the University of Richmond. She is the author of Reveries of Community: Epic in the Age of Henri IV and co-editor of Polemic and Literature Surrounding the French Wars of Religion. Susan and Kitty have both received training from, and are members of, the International Coaching Federation. They are also two of the editors of Transformative Coaching for Faculty and Staff in Higher Education. Welcome back, Susan, and welcome, Kitty.

Kitty: Thank you, thank you so much.

Susan: Thank you,

John: Rebecca cannot be here today. So, once again, our Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Engineering here at SUNY Oswego will be filling in, and that’s Kristin Croyle.

Kristin: Thank you. I’m delighted to be here. So, today’s teas are, John, what are you drinking today?

John: I am drinking a spring cherry green tea.

Kristin: Oh ho ho. and for our guests, what are you drinking today?

Kitty: Well, I’m drinking a tea that is called Richmond Blend. I’m here in Richmond, Virginia, and the tea is from Boscovs, which is a sort of an iconic coffee and tea purveyor here in Richmond, Virginia, and it’s sort of a spicy cinnamony clovey tea. It’s probably better for Christmas time, even though we’re in July, but I definitely wanted to play along, because I’ve noticed, anyway, because I listened to your podcast quite a bit, that a lot of your guests have not been following and really respecting the conceit of the show, [LAUGHTER] so I wanted to make sure to do that today with my tea.

Susan: Oh no, and I’m a violator [LAUGHTER] because it’s going to be a swelter today here in Columbus, Georgia, and so I am having a Limoncello LaCroix, or La Croix, [LAUGHTER] as fancier people might want to pronounce it now. [LAUGHTER]

Kristin: Now, if this was afternoon here… we’re recording in the morning… I would be drinking a cold Earl Grey, but morning… just water today.

John: And going back to your earlier comment, one of our serial offenders has been Derek Bruff, who brings his tea for teaching mug, which he refers to as his coffee mug. [LAUGHTER]

Susan: Oh no. [LAUGHTER]

Kitty: It’s heresy. [LAUGHTER]

John: It’s always great to have him on, though, when we do get a chance to talk to him. [LAUGHTER] So, we’ve invited here today to discuss transformative coaching for faculty and staff in higher ed. Could you tell us a little bit about how this book project came about.

Susan: So, this is a book that was born at the Pod Network Conference in 2023 in Pittsburgh, and Karen Gonzalez Rice and I decided to pitch a birds of a feather session, which POD attendees may know more about. They’re very informal conversations. They usually take place first thing in the morning on one of the conference days, and they’re opportunities for people to informally discuss something that’s of sort of emerging interest. And so we pitched a birds of feather session on coaching. Kitty was in the group of attendees that day, and she was already working with Katie Linder and her coaching program for academics, and so within a couple of months after that November conference, the four of us had kind of connected and expressed interest in doing an edited collection and put together a call for proposals, and we were off to the races.

Kristin: Excellent. And who’s the intended audience for the book?

Kitty: Well, it’s really interesting, because we started out thinking that this book was going to be mainly for other coaches working in higher ed, or possibly people who we call coaching curious, just those who are wondering what coaching is about, and maybe if they want to become a coach. But it was really interesting as we started to talk to potential collaborators and contributors, our vision of what this book could be really expanded, and we realized that coaching has applications that really go beyond what we had initially proposed, so while the most obvious audience would be those who support faculty and staff in higher ed, that’s to say, people like educational developers, or maybe even folks who work in HR, several pieces relate directly to, for example, faculty roles like chairing a department, or even teaching, and so we ended up adding some other chapters to have a more capacious vision of what coaching could do in higher ed, so we have chapters from mid-level administrators, we have some other chapters for people working in different parts of higher ed, like instructional design, and I guess I would say our real wish for an audience, our sort of shadow audience, is upper-level administrators who hold the purse strings and can really hopefully have an opportunity to see how coaching might benefit their institutions and those working in them, and how it might be deployed throughout the university, but I think our overall takeaway here is that coaching is a really nimble way to support individuals at a complex moment in higher ed and the world.

Kristin: Excellent.

John: How did you select the authors of the chapters of this book?

Susan: We circulated our call for proposals widely among all of the coaching networks that the four of us were already a part of, and encouraged them to share freely. One reality that we recognized in seeing the need for this book was that there aren’t that many… there really aren’t any… formal organizations for those who work in coaching in higher ed, and so it had to be sort of a grassroots solicitation, and we got a really generous, lovely set of submissions that then we got together, talked about where there might be some topics that we wanted to see, but no one had submitted on, recruited a few more people who we knew had expertise in those areas, and overall we’re just super excited to have almost 30 contributors, or maybe a little more than 30 contributors to the book.

Kristin: Yeah, I was struck in looking through the book at both the unified voice, but also the really personal voices in it, and having that many contributors gives you an opportunity to have a lot of different voices in a kind of personal way. The book is divided into six sections. You were talking previously about all the different aspects that you wanted to bring in. Can you give us an overview of what kind of thing is addressed in each section?

Kitty: Sure, I’d be happy to. We start with a section on the foundations of coaching, which is really an introduction to what coaching actually is and is not. Susan just referred to the fact that sometimes coaching isn’t even really well defined, and can even have a questionable reputation, depending on who you’re talking to. So, this book, in the intro, we really established the norms of the International Coaching Federation, which is where most of us have been trained, or we’ve been trained in with organizations that are adjacent and use some of those same principles, and that is defining coaching as a collaborative process between a client and a coach to support the client in reaching goals. And then the second part is about growing coaching skills, and it really explores how to develop some of the essential skills and competencies that we associate with coaching, and how those can support folks in higher ed. So we talk about cultural awareness, we talk about knowledge of the profession, and we also talk about ways we can support the entire spectrum of neurodiversity with our clients. The next section is about applying coaching skills to specific scenarios, and so we really explore how coaching can be used in teaching, research, and leadership positions, and a subsequent section talks more about coaching for specific audiences, so we look at coaching for folks who are in roles like senior administration or student affairs, instructional technology, and also people who may just be having certain experiences in higher ed, for example, those experiencing burnout. And then we have a section on coaching the career cycle, where we focus on how coaches can help develop or help others develop vitality in the different stages of their careers. So that one’s a little more faculty focused, although not exclusively so, and then our last section is about group, team, and peer coaching materials, and that section we think about how we can scale coaching to reach more people than just a typical one-on-one individual interaction, so we think about how coaching can play a role in organizational transformation, or how we can use coaching to develop community.

Kristin: I appreciated your use of the term coaching curious, because I think having that variety of topics really gives people a chance to see the range with which coaching can be used in higher ed.

John: What led you to see coaching as a useful framework for faculty and staff development in higher ed?

Susan: Well, I had begun my academic career working in writing centers, and in that field the writer is always given the agency and autonomy to be in charge of their own work, and you work with the peer tutors, or the peer consultants, as they’re called sometimes, to respect the control of the output to the student, and so when I first learned about coaching, I immediately recognized a similar kind of ethos, which is different than mentoring and different than consulting, and different from therapy in an important way that maybe we can address later, but mostly in that a mentor or a consultant is someone who has the knowledge that they’re planning to impart to the person being mentored, whereas coaching respects the client or the coachee as the expert in their own situation, and the person who the answers really need to be drawn out from. And so I also connected with it as an educational developer, and thinking about active learning, because telling people what to do just doesn’t work, [LAUGHTER] as wise as it may be, and telling them about the knowledge or skills you want them to develop is just not as effective as allowing them to come to those realizations for themselves, and so I saw the value in it. I was already committed to its usefulness in learning, and coaching, in the end, is a lot about the learning process of the client.

Kristin: And John didn’t mention, but I’ll say, I’m a clinical psychologist, that’s my background, so I’ll just double down on what you said there. [LAUGHTER]

Susan: Yes, thank you.

Kitty: And I would also say that coaching for educational developers, coaching is kind of in the air anyway. There’s a really canonical article from 2011 by Michael Palmer and Deandra Little, which is called “A coaching-based framework for individual consultations,” and a lot of us use that, and I used it for years to help me be a better consultant when folks come in for specific pedagogical reasons, or even just to talk about career questions, and so I was already using some of those principles, and so it was a really exciting opportunity to develop those coaching skills and really take them further.

Kristin: Beyond some of the iconic articles in the field, your book cites several studies concerning the impact of coaching in workplace settings. Tell us a little about the research foundation here.

Kitty: Absolutely, so we have a very short literature review in the book that will point you to some helpful resources that talk about what coaching is and how it works. In particular, there are two meta analyses, one that came out in 2016 and one that came out in 2023 that have both looked at the literature to demonstrate how coaching is an effective workplace intervention, and more specifically, what that could mean is that coaching has been linked in the research to things like greater optimism, work-life satisfaction, engagement in work, productivity for workers, and it’s also been studied in terms of how it can improve management skills for those who are in supervisory roles. So, there’s a recognition there that more research is needed, that it’s really an evolving field and has become more and more common in the workplace over the past 20 years, but there’s also a lot that’s very promising there, and I would just say that what it really does for me is confirm the positive results that we tend to see firsthand as coaches in our sessions, or even those of us who’ve been coached ourselves, so it sort of confirms that anecdotal evidence that we already had, that it’s a very powerful practice.

Kristin: Thank you.

John: Your book title uses the word “transformative.” What makes coaching transformative rather than simply supportive or developmental?

Susan: Yeah, we address in the introduction just briefly the fact that the word transformative is more than just an adjective for a number of theories of leadership, and we want to signal with that word that we are taking a particularly open approach to multiple different ways of thinking about transformation, but I can say about the way that coaching, in particular, signals transformation to me comes from one of the leaders in the field, Marcia Reynolds. She wrote a book, I think, called Coach the Person, Not the Problem, [LAUGHTER] in that one of the most important questions and transformational questions in coaching sessions can be what makes this important, and so you’re drawing out from the client not just a solution to their immediate problem, but something deeper, something that would signal a shift that is a new perspective for them, a new insight that might change their behaviors or even beliefs, and so in that respect it’s more than a surface- level change.

Kristin: I know that none of us are unaware that higher ed is going through a lot of change right now, and that we have many faculty and staff colleagues who are experiencing burnout, who are feeling particularly uncertain, who may have difficulty seeing what their future is in higher ed and aligning their own values to some of the changes in their regions of the country. Tell us a little bit about how coaching can be useful in a setting like this.

Kitty: So I think to go back to our conversation about that word transformational, I would say that coaching is really particularly useful for people navigating transitions and change, and frankly, that’s when most people start to seek out coaching support is when they’re going through something where they’re really not sure what to do, [LAUGHTER] they’re really not sure where to go next, and so anytime there is a lot of uncertainty and change in someone’s life, coaching can be a really helpful response. It kind of gives people back that sense of agency in some way or another. In terms of burnout, in particular, we have a really great chapter in our book by Rebecca Pope-Ruark, who wrote the book Unraveling Faculty Burnout, where she really explores this in terms of faculty, and in that chapter she offers some tools for coaches to help people rediscover purpose, compassion, connection, and balance, and those are the four things that she notes that are pillars of burnout resistance, the things that help us find ourselves when we’re facing those challenging moments in our careers. And I would say more globally, as we’ve started to think about coaching as an ecosystem that could exist within higher ed, I see it as a hopeful space where we can actually build more humane and inclusive higher education workplaces that really respect the individual needs of the people who work here.

Kristin: Thank you.

John: Teaching centers and faculty developers often serve a role where they answer questions for people, they provide models of effective teaching practices. They do workshops and so forth, but the coaching approach is a bit different than that type of interaction. Can you talk a little bit about how a coaching approach might change the nature of interactions with teaching centers and what a typical coaching session might look like?

Susan: So, the most conventional kind of coaching is one on one, and so it’s not a workshop typically, not that a workshop can’t employ coaching strategies, but as we were discussing earlier, it’s about drawing out the expertise of the person that they already possess, so a coach would ask: “Where are you now? What would be different if you achieve this change that you want to make? What are your options for getting there? What obstacles can you anticipate, and how will you respond? What’s the first step?” And so those are each pieces of a coaching framework that the client has to answer for themselves, and so if you think about it in terms of a client who might be also interested in changing their teaching strategies, let’s say it’s slower but might be ultimately more successful route to making that change. You’d have to acknowledge that it’s going to take significant time and resources to adopt new teaching strategies and refine them, or to envision a different career path, or a purposeful retirement. And coaching is allowing you to get clear on why making that change is important enough to invest that time and energy. And so if you don’t know what strategies you might want to employ, then the coaching conversation might include, “Let’s talk about what your resources are. Who do you know? Where could you go? What actions can you take in order to find those things.” So again, you’re not providing the answers, you’re sort of helping the person think about where they want to pursue those.

Kristin: And I know many faculty are well versed with what an individual teaching consultation might feel like, but how would that differ from how a typical coaching session might feel or look like?

Susan: It’s different in that, and this is very important for clients to understand, it’s usually part of the initial meeting in which we take time to talk to them about their expectations and how coaching is different from mentoring or consulting, which is that the coach is not going to hand you the answers. [LAUGHTER] If that’s your expectation, then this is not, maybe the interaction, or the…

Kristin: Oh, but that would be so much easier., wouldn’t it? [LAUGHTER]

Susan: It would…

Kristin: You’d just have the magic answers on hand.

Susan: It would and yet, it wouldn’t be as successful in leading to a lasting change, or growth, or learning, which is hard and takes effort on the part of the person who’s seeking out that growth.

Kitty: And I would just add to what Susan said by saying there are times when coaching isn’t the solution. Sometimes, in a pedagogical consultation, your expertise does come into play, that people really do want to know, like, what should I do in my classroom, what kind of warm-up activities should I do in my classroom, and do you have any ideas for me that I could use? And that’s not a coaching conversation, that’s a consulting conversation, and that’s okay. It doesn’t all have to be about coaching, but I think that coaching skills are valuable, and I think to get back to Susan’s point about her writing center work, the idea that you are seeing the person who’s coming to you for a consultation or a coaching session, you’re seeing them as someone who has more answers than maybe they even realize, and helping draw that out for them with powerful questions, and sometimes coaching tools and deep listening, that is valuable in a consultation too, even if it is a moment when you maybe are going to give somebody a more direct answer, or you’re going to be like, “Here’s a book you could take a look at, and it has all sorts of great ideas in it.” So, they both can be very helpful in this work.

Susan: That’s right.

Kristin: Yeah, I like the writing center analogy, because the best writing teachers are helping people find their voice and express their own voice, they’re not telling them what to write.

John: So, part of coaching involves having the clients identify their own goals, but one of the problems that we all have sometimes is having the motivation to achieve those goals. How can coaches help their clients remain motivated to achieve their goals?

Kitty: Well, this is a foundational piece of what coaching does, and I think the first thing is that it helps people identify their values as well as their true priorities, which sometimes can get lost in all the doing that consumes so much of our time, so it taps into intrinsic motivation, which means that if we are able to set goals that matter to us, that helps us make meaningful progress on those goals. I think sometimes we have goals in mind and they’re actually not our goals, their someone else’s goals. [LAUGHTER] I mean, sometimes that has to be the way it is in our jobs and in our lives, but a lot of times there are ways that we can find to tweak the goals, so that we are actually more naturally motivated to accomplish them. But coaching is also really helpful with project management. It’s helpful in how to plan to find mentors and to find the help that you need to accomplish a goal, and what kind of resources are needed, and then it also can provide accountability structure, which is another thing I think, in particular for academics who do a lot of independent work, where deadlines are a little bit more fluid, or sometimes incredibly fluid, depending on where you are. It helps kind of stay on track. Also, sometimes, for example, in coaching, I actually will write follow-up emails to people, so that’s part of my support is checking in to say, “Hey, last week you said you were going to do this, how’s it going for you, how is that going? And sometimes that’s enough to help people kind of loop into the goals that they want to achieve.

Kristin: And I know that faculty who have worked in a more traditional faculty role versus ones who are working in an administrative role, where there’s more of a team environment, will sometimes find that different structure also to be helpful. So, yeah, it’s finding ways to build your own structures in, yes?

Kitty: Absolutely. And that’s one of the other types of conversations we would have with a client, is: “What’s going to help you keep on track. What do you need to keep on track?” and “How are you going to build that into your life?”

Kristin: What role can coaching play in helping faculty and staff make more sustainable decisions about their time, their energy, their professional identity? How they can make decisions that will pay off for them in their own satisfaction for years to come.

Susan: Yeah, thank you for that question. I think it’s been really interesting to me over the past few years of working with colleagues how much it matters to have someone give you their undivided attention and presence for a number of hours as your coaching series evolves. Even when I was feeling very sensitive about my own development coming out of training as a coach, I would be very conscious of where I had not asked the best question or had fallen through the cracks of where the conversation might have gone and yet there was no question by the end of the conversation that the person was just so pleased to have had the chance to talk and have someone really listen to them carefully, and how desperately people needed that, [LAUGHTER] and so I would say that the sustainable decision making is partly an outcome of having made the choice to invest time and energy in a coaching relationship, like you’ve already taken the first most important step, which is to say, I am going to carve out some time, which, as we know, time is maybe the most precious resource that most academics have, we’re not in it for the money, but we sure do spend time. So, if you’ve decided I’m going to intentionally dedicate an hour on several occasions to talk through an important issue for me, then you’ve already kind of signalled to yourself that this is something you’re prepared to sustain and be committed to, and as Kitty was saying earlier, the accountability that coaching provides is one of the really important things that we practice in between each session, and that ultimately by the time we reach the point where we’re ready to at least temporarily bring that series to a close, t he person needs to have identified what their own accountability practice is going to involve, and so there’s a sustainability priority that’s kind of built into the coaching conversation.

Kristin: I can imagine that some people who have not experienced coaching may listen to this and may think, but I have a very supportive colleague or partner or friend that I have these kinds of conversations with. What do you see as different in the coaching relationship than a great supportive personal relationship?

Susan: That’s a great question, and it’s a question that I asked myself when I was starting the training, because I thought, “Well, you know, I have decent conversational skills. How hard can this be?” And then I realized that it’s actually incredibly hard, because coaching conversations do not follow normal social turn taking. You, the coach, are not an equal, like, interlocutor in that relationship. The client should be doing way more talking and way more thinking, and you are posing powerful questions for them. And so it is not a normal conversation, [LAUGHTER] and it’s hard to develop the skill to sort of be quiet and make space for their thinking to emerge. Sometimes there’s long silences while you’re allowing people to process their thinking, and that’s not the typical friend or colleague kind of conversation.

Kitty: And coaching sessions are actually very highly structured. We follow a pretty standard structure of every coaching conversation, so in that sense, as well, it’s different than having a good supportive friend or colleague, although we all need that too. So I certainly don’t want to say that those conversations are not incredibly valuable, but I would say in my own experience, when I’m having a conversation with a colleague or friend, a lot of that is about getting advice, specific advice from people, which is also incredibly helpful, but coaches aren’t going to give you that advice, they’re going to draw out your own advice for yourself. One of my favorite coaching questions is something that Katie Linder taught us, which is a lot of times clients come to you and they actually expect to be getting advice from you, and so that’s something that we sort of have to prime with our clients, is that we’re not going to be giving you specific advice, because that’s something we’re going to trust you to find yourself, but when somebody does come to you and they really want advice, Katie’s question is, “What would you like me to give you permission to do?” because it turns it back on them again to say, “Hey, what do you really want to do, what are you looking for me to say to you that you want to do yourself?” which I think is a very clever question, and it’s really fun to ask it, [LAUGHTER] it’s really fun to see what kind of answers you get.

Kristin: And I’ll add, too, that having a separate relationship, a coaching relationship, you don’t have to worry if I say this thing, how is my friend going to judge me, or if I say I want to do this, am I ready to talk about this piece with my partner? There’s other complexities in our long-term personal relationships that in a coaching relationship you don’t have to worry about how are they going to change how they see me or what is the impact of this going to be, where there’s a reciprocal kind of emotional care where you’re trying to take care of the other person. Coaching gives people an opportunity to not have to care about [LAUGHTER] not in the same way, to not to take care of the other person, that that’s the time for them to think about how to care for themselves.

Kitty: That’s an incredible point. I think it’s really, really important, and gets us back to some of the principles of coaching, where we are confidential. It’s really our relationship with our clients, it is 100% between us, it never leaves that conversation unless it’s some professional obligation, because someone is expressing harm or something like that, but otherwise it is absolutely confidential, and so people can try on things that they might not feel comfortable trying on with a colleague or a partner.

John: It sounds a lot like psychological counseling in many ways, doesn’t it?

Kristin: In just certainly non-directive approaches, there are similarities, and many of the roots come from the same roots.

John: One of the things you address in the book is how coaching needs will be different for different people at different stages of the career and in different roles. How might coaching needs differ for early career faculty, mid-career faculty, senior faculty, chairs, and staff leaders?

Kitty: I would say in many ways the coaching approach doesn’t change much with all of these audiences, because our practices are similar. We are going to ask powerful questions, we’re going to be listening deeply in a way that empowers the individuals we work with, but coaches often develop expertise in a particular area, depending on where they’re working and the spaces they’re working in, and when that happens, coaches tend to see similar issues come up, so they become more skilled at asking the right question at the right time, or understanding a particular tool is going to be really useful for somebody in a particular career phase. So to your question, John, it’s not unusual, for example, when I encounter people in their early career to be struggling with finding mentors or to be trying to figure out what kind of workflows are going to actually be effective for them as they’re juggling all of the new things that they may have not had to juggle in graduate school. On the other hand, someone who’s a little bit more advanced in their career might be thinking about legacy or thinking about retirement. Someone in mid-career might be just getting tenure and trying to figure out what’s next for them after they’ve jumped all these hurdles and they finally come to the end of the hurdles and are looking ahead and saying, “Well, what do I do now?” So, really, I think a general coaching approach can help with any of those concerns, but a coach with a background in those areas is likely to have the tools to address a particular need. And so, one of the nice things about our volume is it has some great chapters to help both coaches and those who are kind of going through those different career phases.

Kristin: How can coaches help faculty and staff navigate conflicts between their own goals, values, and commitments and institutional pressures, particularly in settings where coaching may be available within the institution.

Susan: This is a really important question, and it’s one that touches on some things we’ve already mentioned having to do with ethical commitments. The International Coaching Federation, in fact, requires an ethics training as part of the credentialing process and re-credentialing process, and so for internal coaches this is particularly important, and as Kitty mentioned, the confidentiality piece is primary, but the other thing that kind of surprised me when I first started the training and remains really important to my sense of the value of doing this in higher ed is that the coach’s primary responsibility is with the client, not the institution. And so, I was really kind of shocked when I asked the question in my training: “Well, what if the person wants to quit? Then what do you do?” And the response was, “Well, then you need to explore that with them.” This is not a place where your job is to make sure that they stay with the institution, no matter what. You’re helping them think through a very difficult professional crossroads, and so if maintaining their affiliation with the institution is really a valuable and meaningful priority for that client, then okay, we know that that’s one of our anchors. We’re going to have to figure out how to manage this conflict in other ways, but if the conflict turns out to be more significant than staying in that job or role, then the job of the coaching partnership is to think about how to manage this transition. What would be a better fit? What does that look like, how are you thinking about that, and so there’s a great chapter in the book, in particular by Chinasa Elue, that is about coaching. Well, let’s see, what does she call it?

Kitty: Walking the tightrope…

Susan: Walking the tightrope: Coaching faculty clients who decide to leave the university.

Kristin: And as a Dean, I will say that if someone talks with me, and there are faculty and staff who talk with me about their quandaries about whether they should stay or go, I actually see my role in a very similar way. I want them to be thriving. If they’re thriving here, it’s good for the institution, but if they’re not thriving, it’s not good for them, and it’s not good for the institution,

Susan: That’s right,

Kristin: But that’s a very different conversation, certainly, than it would be with a coach.

Susan: It is, and I have noticed that it’s particularly difficult and regrettable that the system of tenure makes many people feel that there is no possible way for them to walk away from this. They grabbed the gold ring, and so, boy, they better stay. And so it’s a life crisis. [LAUGHTER] And so coaching is a really wonderful tool to have to be able to work through that kind of crisis.

John: So, who should be trained in coaching skills? Clearly, from the main theme of the book, teaching center staff should be, but might this also be appropriate for chairs and deans and student affairs professionals and supervisors and peer mentors, and might it even be helpful for faculty, because our relationship with students is also a coaching relationship in many ways.

Kitty: Yeah, I would say absolutely to all of those things. I think coaching skills are really helpful for anyone, and in particular, anyone in a type of role where you’re being asked to mentor or support or guide others in some way. I think one of the biggest revelations for me during my coach training was the breadth of occasions where I found deep listening and powerful questions to come in handy, not just professionally, but even personally, in some moments. So, I think when I think of faculty members, John, as you noted, working with students, coaching skills can be so helpful, or if you’re doing advising with students in any way, but I’d also say with colleagues, I think one of the things that I have experienced myself as a former faculty member is we’re not always good at talking to each other, we’re not always good at listening to each other, we’re not always good at asking the right questions of each other, and so those skills can be applied in all sorts of contexts.

Kristin: What mistakes should campuses avoid when they first try to introduce coaching?

Susan: In the beginning of the book, we have a couple of chapters. These are Katie’s on how to seek out certified training programs, what questions to ask, what are all of the options you might consider, and for what reasons. But training is key. So I hope that our book is an important contribution to people who are at the coaching curious stage, but I wouldn’t want someone to read our book and then decide, okay, we’re ready, [LAUGHTER] let’s do it. There’s some very important standards that we want coaching professionals to be able to meet and uphold, and institutions can also look into outsourcing, just like with any other professional development. The imperative to develop your own internal coaches doesn’t have to be where you start, and in the corporate sector, executive coaching has been a thing for a long time, and I think upper-level administrative leaders get a little bit of that because they fall into that kind of executive identity, but what we’re really hoping to do is democratize this resource, and so where deans or provosts or others who have control of institutional budgets might be interested in whether coaching could be a useful way to help people who could benefit. I think there are other places to begin.

Kristin: Yeah, I think the influence of kind of corporate leadership coaching has been a positive in many ways, because people see it, they see the value, they think, “Well, if that’s something that is a given in those settings, and people will pay a lot of money for it in those settings, that it must have actual value.” So that people who are not responsive to the research foundation may be responsive to that argument. Instead, I think the first time I hired a coach for someone was 15 years ago, saying, “Look, you have great leadership capacity and skill, but it’s not something that you’re able to bring out. Let’s see if a coach can help bring that out.”

Susan: Oh, thank you for saying that, Kristin, and if I could just add something else about ways we would prefer not to see coaching implemented is as remediation. Your impulse was to see someone who has great leadership potential, because coaching is about where are you now and where do you want to go, and I would love to h ear more from you about how you see therapy and counseling as distinct from that kind of orientation, because my understanding, or the way that I explain it to my clients, is that if we get to a place where you seem unable to move past something that happened to you in the past or some conflict you had with someone in the past, and we just keep being drawn back to this issue that clearly needs to be resolved or healed in some way, then I’m going to make a referral to you to a professional counselor, a professional therapist. A coach should be trained to recognize when referrals are the appropriate action.

Kristin: Absolutely, absolutely, and of course it depends on the therapeutic approach. Some therapeutic approaches focus more on skill building as well, or someone may not have developed the skills that they need to really thrive in interpersonal relationships, for example, or they may have significant substance abuse backgrounds, or there may be all kinds of things going on, and a great therapist is tooled to be able to handle complexity and to be able to recognize how those complex pieces act together and help somebody move forward in their lives and their goals. I certainly would think that the ultimate goal is very similar. We’re all trying to help people in education as well identify the things that they see as really valuable in their lives and the capacities that they can see that they have to live a meaningful and joyful life, that is our goal across the board. I’m sure that is the goal of many of our faculty as well, with the students that they work with. We just take a somewhat different approach in doing so. I’m also thinking that listeners may have one other question. You may have gotten them really excited, so can I ask the question, if someone is looking for a good coach, what might you suggest in how they could find one.

Kitty: Well, I would say one thing to know about coaches is that most of them do a free half an hour consult with their coaching practice, so there’s nothing lost if you find someone who looks interesting to you, and you just want to have a conversation to see if you vibe with that person and their approach. In terms of finding a coach. I would look for someone who has an ICF credential personally, just because having gone through that training, I know that it’s quite rigorous and quite demanding, and the people there have been trained quite a bit with ethics, and they’re trained to recognize the difference between therapy and coaching, and know where their limits are. So, I would definitely look for that as well. And I might just ask around a little bit to see if anybody you know has had a great experience. I know that’s how I found my career coach that I had back in the day, that I had a really excellent experience with, which was one of the things that got me into coaching in the first place. So, Susan may have some better advice than I do on that one.

Susan: No, I think you answered that really nicely. There is, I believe, a coach finder tool on the ICF website that would be the whole breadth of coaches all over the globe, so that may be a deeper dive [LAUGHTER] than you’d want to do right at the beginning.

Kristin: And I’ll also double down on a short consult session is a great idea. Sometimes people just don’t jive, and it’s no reflection. The coach may be a fabulous coach, it doesn’t mean that the person requesting coaching is all screwed up because they didn’t jive with this coach. Sometimes there’s just not a connection, and it’s not a reflection on either person, but it’s worth that first conversation to say, “You know, this just didn’t seem to go. I’m going to just try again,” because having a good connection can provide a really good foundation.

Susan: That’s right. And coaches are typically very generous. I have also had other coaches make referrals to people who might be better suited, for example, when I was seeking out mentor coaches for my re-accreditation, and I appreciated that generosity.

Kristin: Tell us about your experience of writing the book.

Susan: I would really like to praise our contributors to this volume, not least of which for being the most organized, well-managed time writers that I think have ever existed in a co-edited collection of this size. It was such an interesting experience to work with people who all sort of work with other people about time management issues and writing, because they were on it. No one had to be repeatedly nudged into getting their submission in. It was a really smooth process, and it was such an enjoyable experience to work with Kitty and Katie and Karen, because four people is a nice group as a editing team. When one of us had a life got in the way of being able to keep our balls rolling, the other three people would always pick up the slack, and so I think we were able to make incredibly smooth progress on getting this book to the press.

John: We always end with a question, what’s next?

Susan: I am actually heading full force into this coaching world. As of this summer, I’ll be leaving my role as a director of Center for Teaching and Learning to focus on coaching for individuals and for organizations, in addition to the speaking engagements and workshop facilitating that I have been so honored to do with a number of universities, my focus on active and embodied learning and my coaching practice specifically offers an embodied approach, because I like to conduct outdoor audio only sessions, in which clients can be walking or enjoying some fresh air to develop new perspectives and spending time outside.

Kristin: Excellent.

Kitty: And for me, I’m sort of in the midst of a lot of reflection and planning for the academic year here at the University of Richmond. So, I’ve been particularly busy thinking about ways to support folks in our mid-career. We revamped our early career support programs with the Provost Office last year, and this year we’re starting to focus on mid-career folks, so really post-tenure, or for those not in a tenure-line position, more advanced teaching associates, and so I last year did a group coaching with the Associated Colleges of the South across all the schools of that consortium, and we’re going to do one here at UR next year. So, I’ve been working a lot on that and thinking about group coaching and how we can apply that more effectively in my institution.

Kristin: Sounds so interesting.

John: Thank you both. It’s great talking to you again, Susan, and it’s nice meeting you, Kitty. I really enjoyed reading through your book. It’s a really nice collection of resources.

Kitty: It’s been a pleasure.

Susan: Well, thank you. Been great to be featured on Tea for Teaching, because it’s a little outside of the normal topics, and so we’re so happy to spread the word.

Kitty: And I’ve been a fan of Tea for Teaching forever, so it’s so exciting to finally make it on the show. [LAUGHTER]

Kristin: Well, I would love to hear about the group coaching and how that goes, [LAUGHTER] but that’s just putting in a listener request. [LAUGHTER]

[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]

441. Teaching = Coaching

Coaches and teachers work to develop skills by providing structured learning environments, motivational strategies, and individual feedback. In this episode, Christian Fauria and Constanza Bartholomae join us to discuss the similarities among coaching, teaching, and the work of educational developers.

Christian is a former NFL tight end who played 13 seasons and won two Super Bowl Championships with the New England Patriots, and a national champion at the University of Colorado. Following his retirement from football, Christian transitioned into sports media, working as a college football analyst for ESPN and CBS, while co-hosting a radio show on WEEI in Boston. He is now a Professional in Residence at Bryant University in the Communication and Language Studies Department, teaching courses in sports broadcasting and organizational leadership in sports. Constanza is the Interim Director of the Center of Teaching Excellence at Bryant University.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Coaches and teachers work to develop skills by providing structured learning environments, motivational strategies, and individual feedback. In this episode, we discuss the similarities among coaching, teaching, and the work of educational developers.

[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 Christian Fauria and Constanza Bartholomae. Christian is a former NFL tight end who played 13 seasons and won two Super Bowl Championships with the New England Patriots, and a national champion at the University of Colorado. Following his retirement from football, Christian transitioned into sports media, working as a college football analyst for ESPN and CBS, while co-hosting a radio show on WEEI in Boston. He is now a Professional in Residence at Bryant University in the Communication and Language Studies Department, teaching courses in sports broadcasting and organizational leadership in sports. Constanza is the Interim Director of the Center of Teaching Excellence at Bryant University. Welcome Christian and welcome back, Constanza.

Christian: Thanks for having us. It’s my first time. I’m excited.

John: It’s great to meet you. Today’s teas are:… Christian, are you drinking any tea?

Christian: I do. I call this my hearty mug. I got a little green tea in there. Nothing but the tea, no sugar, no nothing, no additives. I keep it clean. That’s what I got this morning.

Rebecca: That’s the way to do it.

John: And Constanza?

Constanza: I’ve got my favorite tea. It’s African Nectar from Mighty Leaf. And if you’re someone who doesn’t like tea, or you’re up for an adventure, this is the tea to try. I have convinced many folks who are not tea drinkers, that tea is an option with this particular one.

Christian: Nice.

John: And Rebecca?

Rebecca: I have a Scottish Breakfast tea today, John.

John: An old favorite.

Rebecca: It is.

John: And I have a Lapsang Souchong today, a smoked tea.

Christian: Ooh, fancy.

John: it is. It smells like there’s a wood fire right next to me, and I’m hoping that’s not the case, because I am in an office building here on campus.

Rebecca: We invited you both here today to discuss the working relationship that you’ve developed at Bryant University. Can you each tell us a little bit about how you began working together?

Christian: Okay, so I’ll make a long, long story short, because this will take about an hour. So like you mentioned in the intro, played in the NFL, worked in media forever, got fired some random day, and then just kind of walked around trying to figure out, like, what was I going to do next? I had no idea what I was going to do, and I decided that I wanted to teach. I never wanted to coach a sport other than my kids, because coaches in the college level and in the pro level, they have no life. I wanted a life, so I decided that, with some input from my wife, I said, Yeah, let’s do that. So what I did is I created a syllabus about broadcasting, things that I thought were important. I sent it out an email to like, 10 different schools here in the Northeast region. The only school that did not reply to me was Harvard, and then all the other nine replied to me, and then I just narrowed it down to Bryant. And I’ve never taught before other than a sport, so I was really kind of lost as far as how I should go about it. I knew what I wanted to say, but I didn’t really know how to form it. I didn’t know how to create it. I didn’t know a grading scale. I was very, very green. And when I found out about the CTE center, I met Constanza, and she was like a beacon of hope for me, because she really just explained things as simple as possible for me to understand them. And not only was she good at the technical side. I thought that she was really good at the emotional and physical side as well, because I had no real belief in myself that I could do it. I know I could say what I wanted to say, but I didn’t really know if I could actually get my message across. And then I hijacked all her time, because that’s what I basically did. I hijacked all her time. I would come in there unannounced. I would ask her at the last minute: “I’m stressing out. My class is in five minutes. What should I do?” She was always available. She was always encouraging, she always motivated me the right way. And for me, it was like she was doing all the same things that my coaches did throughout my 13 year NFL career, my five year college career, and then my high school career. It was this exact same thing. It was just a different message, a different tool that she was using, as far as, instead of, like blocking and catching, it was rubrics and teaching philosophies and structure. So again, to me, she became such a good, valuable asset, and then she just became a good friend. So that’s my approach to how we met and how we started working together.
.

Constanza: And on my end, Christian’s department chair said, “I’ve got someone for you to meet. We’ve got this new faculty member. You’re going to love him. And oh, by the way, he used to play for the Patriots.” Now, what his department chair didn’t know? What Christian didn’t know is because I grew up in a family where my dad was European and not into American football, didn’t understand it. And my mom also did not watch sports. I knew nothing about football, like I’ve heard of the Patriots, of course, I live in Massachusetts. I didn’t know who Christian was. I didn’t know how famous he was, what his reputation was. So in comes walking this very energetic and excited human being. And again, I had no idea about anything about who he was or what his subject matter was. And I went home and I said “I had a really cool teaching consult today” to my husband, and he’s like, “Who is it with?” And I was like, “Christian Fauria? And he’s like, “No way. I used to listen to him on the radio on the way home from work.” And I was like, “Oh, that’s cool,” but the more that we interacted, the more I got to know Christian and I was like, “Wow, what a great hire. You’ve got someone who’s so full of life and personality and experience,” and although a lot of times what will happen in the Center for Teaching Excellence is that folks will come in and I don’t necessarily have the same subject matter expertise as they do. I’ve never had, clearly, a career in football or in sports broadcasting. I get to hear about what matters to them, what makes them excited, what they love to learn about. And then we get to talk about, okay, how do we convey this over to your students? And then on top of that, as you both have seen from us talking with Christian he’s just really, really funny and just uplifting and human sunshine. So that was an added benefit. Yeah, for sure,

John: Christian, your experience of coming in without much teaching experience or without much of a background in effective teaching practices is something that’s pretty common for many faculty, but your reaction to it was a little bit different than most faculty. Most faculty just tend to rely on what they had experienced when they were students, and that’s not always the best way of preparing for teaching at the college level. What made you decide to approach the teaching center? Was it a suggestion from the chair, or was this something that you just wanted to find out more about before getting into the class?

Christian: So I had an idea of how I wanted to approach the class, but I graduated college in 1995, so it’d been a long time, and I never really had any professors that I remember making any sort of impact on my life whatsoever. The impact that was made on my life was always from my coaches. So I really wanted to find a way to coach the students or teach the students like I was coached and I didn’t know what I was allowed to do, I didn’t know how far I could go, and that’s why I came to Constanza. I was like, “Listen, this is kind of my idea,” so I really relied on her a lot, to mold my class and to guide me through how I should do things and why I should do these things. Because I really wanted to create, like, first day standards. I wanted to really hammer that home, and I really want to let them know that this is not your ordinary class, like what you’re used to. We’re going to turn that on its head. So yes, that was kind of my approach in the very beginning. Now it’s changed over time, but the initial idea was just that, like, here’s all this information I have. It reminds me of like someone who waits for the last minute to do their taxes, and they got, like, receipts everywhere, and then Constanza’s my accountant. I said, “Here, fix it.” “Okay, how much time do I got?” “20 minutes.” That’s kind of the way I was. And I never left there, I never left her office, scared. I always left her office with not necessarily a pep talk, but just a reassurance that I was doing it the right way, and I shouldn’t listen to the insecurities in my head about what I thought the students were going to think about me or say about me while I was saying it.

Constanza: I think to add on to that, we all need to feel like the work that we are doing matters and is important. And I think that that’s really, if there is a secret sauce to teaching, it’s okay, how do we work with faculty to remind them about why they’re here and why what they’re doing matters, especially in an age where we’re talking a lot about a lack of focus or attention or disengagement. I was listening to Jessica Riddell talk at the AAC&U annual meeting, and she said, “I’ve been thinking a lot about the time that we’re in, and I don’t know if necessarily it’s disruption, but a rupture in the educational system, first with the covid pandemic, then with the advent of generative AI, and so there’s a lot of reworking going on in the teaching field right now, trying to really explain, like, what is our teaching philosophy? Why is what we’re doing important?” And so I think that working with faculty in the educational development space, like how I’m able to work with Christian is such an honor, because we really get to help them re- explore their passions and think about how they can translate that over. And one thing that I noticed about Christian right away is, as he said, he cared a lot. I know he’s made comments and said, “How can I do this in 20 minutes?” But actually, we were meeting so much more frequently than that, and he was thinking things through and planning out his whole semester. And so in certain ways, I was like, “Okay, well, we’re in January. Let’s not worry about April for a little bit, but let’s focus on the next few weeks.” I think, in that sense, I knew here’s someone who cares about their students, their outcomes, but also their well being, and that is someone I can really, really work with, because ultimately, at the end of the day, I tell my students, I care about you learning content, but I care more about how you feel in the classroom. And that was Christian. He’s like, “I’ve got the content in my head. I’m ready to go, but how do I make sure that it lands in a way where students are able to accept and interpret it, are able to digest it, and are able to show me that they can demonstrate understanding and meaning from it.” So it was really like the educational development perfect connection, if you will, and reminded me also of why I do what I do. So it had that impact as well.

Christian: Now, that was well said. That’s exactly how I feel about it.

Rebecca: Coaching is really relational. I’ve been observing my daughter, who is ice skating and working with coaches. And the way coaches work with individuals is often different depending on their personality and who they are. So I’m curious how you see the relationships between coaching and teaching, because I know that I’ve been observing successful coaching and thinking about, “Hmm, what is that secret sauce, and how does that translate over to teaching?” And some of it is like this coachability piece, is this willingness to accept some feedback, or wanting to have a good impact on the learner, whoever that learner might be.

Christian: I’ll go first on this one. So there’s an old saying in the sports ranks where the players don’t care about what you know until they know that you care. And I would say that’s exactly the same way, at least that’s my approach to it. And it looks different for every teacher, every coach, and I would say it looks different for every classroom, because there needs to be expectations, there needs to be trust, there needs to be accountability, there needs to be passion, there needs to be knowledge, all that stuff. It’s all the same thing. I’m telling you. It’s no different from coaching and teaching, at least from where I sit, because I’ve seen it now, and I’ve only been there for over a year, and I know that I have to show some sort of appreciation for them showing up, trying. It doesn’t mean I let them pull a fast one on me, because it goes both ways, and so I echo that sentiment to a T. And the old way of doing things in sports overall is gone the way of the typewriter. Nobody is hardcore authoritarian. It’s more transactional now in sports, based on all the different ways athletes go to school say, “I’ll give you money if you do this.” That’s not the way it is in the classroom, but I would call it, and I don’t know if I can curse on this show, there needs to be a high level of a give-a-shit factor, like you have to give a shit about what you’re doing and what you’re saying. And I think it’s very, very obvious to the students, they’re on to you quick, so you can’t pull a fast one over them. And Costanza, that’s kind of the way I feel about it.

Constanza: I think, as teachers, we’re helping students find meaning in whatever subject matter we’re teaching. And Arthur Brooks is coming out with a new book next week titled The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness. And so Oprah interviewed him last week, I think, and I listened to the podcast episode, and I was like, “Tell me more. You’re a professor and you’re studying the meaning of life. What is that?” And so for him, his definition of happiness is combined with three things: satisfaction, enjoyment and meaning. And he found in his work that meaning is where folks under 30, especially college-age students, perhaps we’re struggling the most, and so I think our job as instructors is to deliver that sense of meaning in our subject matter and really connect the dots to students now more than ever, in an age of generative AI, where folks can look up information and disinformation very easily, we need to show them the humanness behind it, the application behind it. It’s so important. The same happens in the educational development space and in the coaching space. If someone feels like they do not matter or that you wouldn’t notice them if they were absent in your class, they are far less likely to be engaged. It’s very important in my work that in the space that I’m in, where faculty come in and they are vulnerable, they’re usually talking to me about something that isn’t working. I do get folks come in and say, “This worked great. I’m so excited.” Or occasionally I’ll get someone that’ll say, “I want to upend my classroom. Let’s totally do things differently.” But usually they’re coming to me because they’re struggling with something in the classroom, and it’s really hard to be vulnerable if the person that you’re speaking with doesn’t know you or isn’t willing to be vulnerable with you in turn. So I always talk about my teaching failures, or even just to the degree that I feel comfortable, of course, and even just things that I’m going through in life at the level that I feel comfortable with, because I feel like the faculty that I work with need to get to know me. We need to develop a relationship of trust, and then we can talk about all right. “Well, here are some things that I think might need to be changed.” So that if I’m giving them feedback, even if it might be not exactly what they wanted to hear or might be difficult, they know, okay, the person who’s talking to me on the other end of this conversation cares about me as a human first and as an educator second, and they then feel more comfortable letting me know exactly what’s going on without having to sugarcoat it, or they feel comfortable walking in my door in the first place. So I think, in that sense, if we’re working in teaching centers to coach faculty on strategies that they can then use to coach students. It’s really developing what Peter Felton and Leo Lambert talk about in terms of relationship-rich education that expands beyond the classroom space that really makes a campus community full of that. I also think too, reminding ourselves that just like students who are first year that come onto campus and are new, our faculty who are new are experiencing that too. Christian is a very energetic and outgoing person, but it was his first year on campus. So like, how do we connect our faculty to different folks on campus that they can reach out to if they’re in need of support or their students are? How do we let them know about what’s available to them to make sure that they feel supported and seen? It’s not something that we always talk about, but establishing that for faculty is really, really important in faculty development work. So I think our job really is to connect and to help folks discover or rediscover their own meaning, why they matter, so that they can then, in turn, do that for their students.

Christian: Let me jump in real quick, because I do think this is important. So how do you connect? In the pros, you’re with the same group of guys for eight months, seven days a week, nine hours a day. So it’s easy to make a connection. It’s so much harder to make a real connection in college, teaching kids. So you may see them once a week, twice a week, for two hours a week. Who knows? I would say this, and it’s a pain in the butt, learn their names. Tell them you’re going to learn their names. I try to do it. I challenge, say, “Listen, by the end of the semester, if I don’t know everybody’s first and last name, if I can’t say it correctly, I will get everybody one letter grade higher than what they already have.” So I put my butt on the line because I do think most of them kind of feel like I’m just like a finance major. I’m a whatever major. I do think learning their names, or at least trying to learn their names, in the short period of time that you’re with them, I think makes a huge, huge connection. Right off the bat, I let them know I’m gonna learn everybody’s name, and it’s freaking hard, man, because there’s so many damn kids. We got so much going on, but that’s one of my goals, always.

John: And that is a topic we’ve explored on past episodes of the podcast, and specifically with Michelle Miller, who wrote a book on how to learn names. And we’ll share a link to that in the show notes. It’s a great book, and it’s a short book, too. It is difficult to learn names. You both emphasize the importance of building connection and building trust to set a foundation for everything else that happens in the classroom. What are some of the other ways in which coaching is similar to teaching, or some of the things that you may have learned from coaching that you brought into the classroom in terms of things like increasing student motivation, because we’ve all been concerned about students becoming a bit more disengaged over the last several years.

Constanza: I think, apart from getting to know your students’ names, genuinely learning who they are as individuals, is something that, unless you’re in a classroom full of 300 students… at Bryant, we do not have that. We have the luxury of having smaller class sizes. And there are many ways that you can do that. We’ve talked for years about intro surveys, but I also think too asking deeper questions. In today’s age, we need to ask questions that really ask our students what they’re hoping to gain from class, but also ask them what would make you feel like you belonged in this classroom space, or what type of classroom space has been a really great one for you, and what did that instructor do and why? So that we understand how they are able to best flourish in the classroom space. And I think that this happens in coaching a lot, too. If we ask folks, what’s the best way for you to receive feedback, some people might want you to start with accountability up front. And they might want you to say, “Well, you told me your goal was this, and you haven’t been meeting it.” For me, that would hit me with so much guilt that if somebody coached me in that way, it’s like when my husband says, Constanza, “I know that you were supposed to be working on your dissertation today. Did you do any writing?” And I’m like, “Oh, I didn’t get any writing today. I’m sorry.” Like, if I start off with that, I get really nervous. So I know, for me, that isn’t always the best way to go about it. Sometimes I have days that are anomalies where I want that, but asking students like, “What’s the best way for you to get feedback? …and sticking to that as best as you can.” I do think we need to personalize the educational space more. I think it’s hard, because just like Christian said, we’ve seen the educational space change. We didn’t talk about belonging as much as we do now, even 10 years ago. Now, it’s so crucial. I think the challenge is balancing that, because instructors are humans too, and so, for them, they’re one instructor, maybe in a room of 35 students, times three or four classes. So it’s working with instructors to coach them into okay, how do you build those connections with your students? And how do you do it in a way that isn’t going to cause you to burn out? Perhaps that’s by asking better questions. Perhaps that’s by changing the way that we ask the questions. Perhaps that’s by talking to them about different ways that they can synthesize that information, or working with their teaching center to do that. I think those are the ways that we start to do it today, because students want that. And if students feel like their instructor doesn’t care about them, they are going to be less engaged. And if faculty feel like the teaching center on their campus is not a friendly place, or is not a place where they feel comfortable or safe sharing, they’re not going to go there. And so we need to make sure that we’re really listening to the people that we are working with, whether they be students or faculty or administrators or staff, and speak their language in terms of feedback, in terms of praise. And that’s another thing too. I think in teaching, we’re always looking for ways in which our students are struggling, that we forget sometimes, that we need to also give praise and feedback on what they’re doing right, and why. Because so often we’ll see our high performers and say, “Oh, well, Susie’s fine,” like she’s got this, she did really great on this assessment, and we don’t tell them how they did really great on the assessment. And that can be a form of isolation on campus as well, if those high performers are not feeling seen. And so that’s another thing I think we really need to be thoughtful about, and we also need to be thoughtful about the faculty members that we see spotlighted a lot. They’re still human, checking in with them, seeing how they’re doing, asking what they did over the weekend. Those small things really, really matter, and can help someone feel like they’re connected or disconnected to campus.

Christian: So Constanza, you said something I was literally cracking up. That’s why the connection between the two worlds, I think, is fascinating to me. If I respected and knew that my coach cared about me and was pushing me and was challenging me the right way, and I went out there and I let them down. I felt like crap. I felt like crap because I appreciated the effort that they put into developing me, and it’s those uncomfortable conversations, because, like, I sit there, I walk in there, man, I feel like these kids are fragile… You got to be real careful with what you say to one and how you say it, and you don’t want to say the wrong word or stick your foot in your mouth. I think they want, and I don’t have a better phrase for this, Constanza, maybe we can workshop this… tough teaching. I think they want it. I think they want to be challenged. They want somebody to challenge them. Because that, to me, is like the “Oh,” like, “this was really worth it. This is a great class. I learned a lot,” and that’s what I do. And I can tell the students listen. Some of them don’t care at all. They just want to get through it. But I would say 80% of them are dialed in, and it always makes me feel better when I see them accepting the tough teaching. This was not good enough. You know what our expectations are. Why would you do it this way? You know what the standards are, like I told you the day one, and I keep reiterating it every single day. You’re so much better than that. It’s a little bit of mix of scolding but reaffirming your love for them. I’m on you. I’m talking to you this way because I know you can do better. I know you can, so don’t tell me that I don’t believe in you, because I’m showing it right now. It may not be the way you want it, but that’s the way it’s going to be given to you, because this is the way I think I can get the most out of you, and I’m real open about that. And to Constanza’s point, that’s why I was laughing, because my coaches, whenever they were like this, I was at my best; when they just kind of walked through and didn’t say anything, I didn’t care at all if I messed up, because he was a jerk. So I was fine with it.

John: That reminds me a little bit of the concept of wise feedback that’s been developed by David Yaeger and others, which is, let students know that you’re giving them feedback because you believe that they’re capable of more. In several randomized, controlled studies, it’s been shown that that increases student effort substantially.

Christian: Yeah. And to be honest with you, I was giving them feedback during the class, but I wasn’t when I was grading them, and I remember Costanza saying, “You got to give them feedback.” In my head, I’m like, “Oh, geez, there’s so many kids, like, I’m going to be writing like, a long, two page paper for each kid.” And I really appreciated that, because she was right. I felt so ashamed that I was not giving the feedback that I should have been giving them, because, to your point, it’s important for them to hear what they did wrong, what they continue to work on, and how I know they can do it. I’ve changed since the first day. I think you’re like, “You’re not giving them feedback?” I was like, “Well, I am. I’m just not giving probably enough.”

Constanza: And I think, too, we talk in higher ed a lot about the phrase “compassionate challenge.” And so Christian is able to have difficult conversations with students, or what others might perceive as difficult conversations with students, because he shows them how much he cares. And so when he says things like “Hey, like what happened here?” from someone else who doesn’t have that connection established with their student, that might be the most intimidating question ever. Christian also will say to them, like, “Hey, this is going to be challenging.” What he didn’t tell you is he brought a group of students out to radio row to cover the Super Bowl. And I’m sure he said to them, “This is going to be challenging. You’re going to have to meet people that you’ve never spoken to before.” We know for students that just speaking up in general, in today’s age, in a classroom with an instructor that they’ve gotten to know over the course of this semester can be intimidating. And I was so impressed by the work that the students were putting out and the little clips that I saw on Instagram, in the coverage that I was seeing. And that’s really a moment where, as an educational developer, you take a step back and you’re like, “Wow, this is public evidence of someone who has taken teaching, who has taken coaching… literally taken students out of their element into a brand new experience. And look at them thriving. Look at them doing the thing that, in the classroom maybe was talked about as theoretical. Look at them applying it.” And so I’ve been just really proud to watch Christian’s evolution in terms of the way that he coaches his students and teaches them too.

Rebecca: I’m curious, at what level, both in faculty developer working with a faculty member and also a faculty member working with a student, how much work there is, maybe, to overcome impostor phenomenon. So moving into a new space, a new discipline, even if the subject matter is familiar, how that can kind of play into [LAUGHTER] like either desperately wanting feedback or also some fear, and how students can be the same, maybe in a class with someone famous [LAUGHTER] might be really intimidating, and how to kind of work through some of those kinds of challenges students and faculty face?

Constanza: Yeah, I think first, to go back to what I said earlier, you have to develop a connection with the faculty member that you’re working with as well. In my experience, that is the only way that you can be successful in terms of educational development, because you can give a ton of advice, but if the faculty member doesn’t know that you mean what you say and that you care, and if they don’t know who you are as a human, it doesn’t matter. And so folks might come in and they might be skeptical of you. They might be skeptical of the theories or the teaching center or the work, and then you have to demonstrate to them in a way that isn’t condescending, that’s inviting, “here’s my subject matter expertise.” We forget sometimes that educational developers have that too. We have a whole lot of subject matter expertise, and my colleague, Michelle Munoz in our teaching center is always talking about that, which I love. It’s a good reminder for me too. So before we get into any of that, first we have to sort of human to human talk, and then we can get into coaching. And then we can say, “All right, what’s your plan? Let’s talk about it.” And if it doesn’t go according to plan, I love reminding faculty, the only person who had the playbook was you. So, if you didn’t cover all five things that you wanted to cover, the only person to know that necessarily is you. But also, that is what we need to remind faculty. And also it can be a positive thing. Maybe students got so fascinated about a particular area that you were talking about, you had all of this conversation that time flew by and you didn’t cover everything. Faculty in today’s world are so worried, at least in the work that I do, about covering all of the material. We had a huge snowstorm, and then a blizzard in Rhode Island. And so we had multiple days this semester that either school was canceled or we went remote. And so there was a lot of nervous energy there about, “oh no, I had planned for X many course sessions. The classic snow day happened, and now I have to figure out how to compensate.” And so working with faculty on saying, like, “Hey, it isn’t about covering all the content necessarily. It’s the quality.” And let’s rethink and reframe what that looks like, not just for this week, but for the semester. Because, again, the semester long playbook is yours, and you are the subject matter expert. You determine what students really, really need to know in order to have meaning come out of this class, let’s work together on it. So that’s how I think I would respond to that question.

Christian: Listen, from a teaching standpoint, for me, is: “absolutely what am I doing here? I don’t belong. I don’t know anybody all that stuff. I don’t have a master’s degree, but I know I know what I’m talking about because I’m an expert in my field. I just don’t have a degree for it.” Nobody has been like, “Here’s a trophy. I don’t have a Marconi. I have 20 years in the business,” but, yeah, to me, that’s a Costanza thing. It’s almost like, you are good enough, you are smart enough. You know, it’s one of those things. [LAUGHTER] I’m like, “Yeah, let’s go. There’s no brick wall to run through, there’s just a door, so I have to consume my energy.” So that was real. I’m not gonna lie. Admitting that is hard to do because, like, I just didn’t really feel like I belonged at first, and it took some time and some coaching to feel comfortable in my own skin, for a bunch of like, 19 to 20 year olds.

Rebecca: They’re tough crowd.

Christian: They are a tough crowd. I look at them sometimes and I’m like, they don’t give a crap what I’m saying right now. And I leave there depressed, and I feel like I didn’t do a good job. That’s the worst feeling, to be honest with you, is leaving the classroom going, “Oh man, that sucked. I could have done so much better than that.” But I will say this, I know I’m kind of changing the direction, but even when that happens, I’ll have some students that’ll come up to me, and I swear up and down, this kid was not paying attention, could care less, was not engaged at all. When those guys come up to me, or those girls come up to me and they say, “This is the best class I’ve ever had.” I’m like, “Really? You didn’t say one word.” [LAUGHTER] You didn’t say anything. You acted like I had a big hole in my head. And that, to me, is very rewarding.

Constanza: Yeah, and I think to go back to the point about impostor syndrome, we all feel it. So sharing it… I started teaching in the college space when I was 23 and so like Christian, I tell faculty this, like Christian, I was like, “No, I’m supposed to be on the other side of the desk, I’m just supposed to be learning. I’m not supposed to be teaching. And the first day I taught, the technology didn’t work. I couldn’t get my roster. It was, in all senses, a disaster. And I remember going home and called my dad, and I was like, “Dad, I don’t know how you do this teaching thing. You have to get up in front of people, and they’re staring at you, and everyone depends on you,” and that’s a lot like you said, Rebecca, it’s a tough crowd, and I think too, we’re navigating again like a rupture in higher education, like I mentioned earlier, that Jessica Riddell talks about. And so it’s showing faculty different skills and strategies to reconnect with their audiences in different ways, and they’re learning how to do that. And beginner learning experiences when you’re doing something in a different way can be daunting. And so it’s everything that Christian said. It’s connecting on stories of, okay, well, this didn’t go the way that I expected in the classroom, knowing you’re not alone. I mean, if we could tell tales from the teaching center, which we can talk about things in broad terms, but we’re a non-evaluative, confidential space, but if we had tales from the teaching center, I think a lot of people would say, “Oh, I didn’t realize that so many people were going through the same thing that I was going through. And that’s what we hear on a daily basis in the teaching center. So when folks come to me and say, “I didn’t feel great in that class,” or “the students seem really tired this week,” I can be like, “yeah, there’s a lot going on this week, from what we’ve heard,” and I can reaffirm that for them, but I can also talk to them about my silly moments too, and I’ll also say what I love. My sister is a daycare teacher, and she talks, and she’s like, sometimes things don’t go according to plan in daycare and I’m like, “What do you do?” Like, talk to me about what that looks like, because I only know how to work with adults. I don’t know how to work with toddlers. And she’s like, sometimes we just have to redirect and shake the sillies out. And she, quite literally, will have the students just like, shake it out. And I feel like we need to just shake it out in higher education too.

Christian: I’m doing that. [LAUGHTER]I’m so doing that.

Constanza: Isn’t that adorable. They shake the sillies… [LAUGHTER]

Christian: I bet you, they can probably laugh about it. It probably completely brings them back to their childhood, and it does kind of reset during that time. I’m literally going to do that.

Constanza: I love that, and I will say too, when students get up to present in front of the class, I think that’s probably when they have the most empathy for us, because they realize, “oh, I have to be the focus of attention, and I have to be the content expert right now, and I also need to be not robotic, but engaging.” And those moments, I think, can be helpful in reestablishing connection, not that I think you should just assign students a presentation for no reason. I think that would be very anxiety inducing [LAUGHTER] for most students today. But I think talking about how it might be really daunting for us to be up in front of the class, or letting students know, like, “Hey, I didn’t sleep really well last night. So if I say something and it doesn’t fully make sense, please ask a question,” or just reminding students that we get paid to answer questions, I love saying to faculty, “They actually pay me to answer your questions,” because they’ll be like, “I don’t want to bother you. I know you’re so busy, you’ve got so much going on, I don’t want to take up all your time,” unless you’re Christian. He just said he loves to hijack my time, but like, I get paid to answer questions, come ask questions. We love that in the teaching center, and I know that faculty love it too, because to Christian’s point when someone comes up and asks a question or says, “Wow, that was a really cool lesson.” Oh my gosh, like my heart swells. And I wrote a piece for Inside Higher Ed a while back about keeping a jar of those types of comments, because teaching evaluations, especially, we hold on to that one comment that is slightly negative or totally negative, and we don’t see all the other comments that are like, “this was really eye opening and inspirational,” and “this instructor really cared.” No, we just focus on that one. I think we need to talk about our wins. And if I may, one other thing that I’ll say, I had my husband do this just yesterday, so it’s not just in the educational development space. He works in property management, and he had a woman come in yesterday and her internet was disconnected, and he was like, “I will come stop by during lunch and I’ll help you out.” And she wrote him back and she said, “You made me feel connected to the world again by helping me out.” And I was like, “Michael, you better frame this. I’m not kidding. Like this is the best piece of feedback that you’ve gotten,” because usually folks come to him and they’re like, “I’ve got a problem in my living space,” and it’s really stressful. And he did. He did because he knows I talk about it all the time. I’m like, celebrate your wins, put them as a reminder, so when you have a bad day, you can go back and look at it and be like, “Oh, okay, this is why I matter. This is why I’m here.” We all need that.

John: I’m going to put in a plug for another podcast that came out in the middle of March, about a month or so ago on impostor phenomenon by Sara Kien. We had a really good discussion of that, so I’d encourage people to go back and listen to that if they’d like to learn more about it. In earlier conversations, you both mentioned how surprised you were about the strong similarities between the ways in which skills are developed in sports and the way in which skills are developed in the classroom. How has the experience of sports perhaps informed the way in which you work with students to develop their skills?

Christian: So I would say I have 14 classes with them total in a semester, it’s a lecture class, and there’s not a chance in hell, in 14 classes, I will have them camera ready at a high level to be ready to perform. So what I do is, to develop those skills, we practice it, every day when we get in, we practice certain skills and we practice them again. And part of that would be my game plan. For a game every Monday, when I would come into the facility, my coach would hand me a game plan. Here’s your game plan. Here’s what we’re going to do. Before we even practice, we would do the basic stuff, chopsticks, you know what I mean? Like just to warm up. And the funny thing is, what I’m realizing now is like, I keep telling them, “You guys don’t even understand what I’m doing right now. You’ll understand it in about two months,” because I make them do it over and over and over and over and over again. I said it’ll make sense in the end, and that’s kind of the way I look at it. I think specifically for broadcasting, there needs to be repetition. There needs to be a massive amount of repetition. And there’s a technical side to broadcasting. There’s a physical side to broadcasting, and there’s an emotional side. The first two, I can teach that all day long, easy, like we’ll hammer it home. The emotional side is the more difficult avenue that I’ve seen, getting them comfortable in their own skin. So to that, how do I develop that skill, which is the hardest one to develop, especially for someone who’s not comfortable being in front of people, who’s not comfortable speaking? I’ve created certain… I’ll just call them competitions, either solo or as a group… I’ll divide them into left side versus right side, and constantly putting them in those situations that make sense when they do their final, and then when their final comes around, listen and I tell them, “You’ve done this. We’ve done that. We’ve done this again. We did it over and over again. You guys are ready. The skills are there. The information is there. Now let’s put it into practice.” Constanza was actually… and I hijacked her for one of my classes, for one of the presentations, because I created our own version of Shark Tank, and she was one of the judges. And she was supposed to be real critical and challenge them. I want them to be challenged. And there was two other professors that helped out. So that’s what I would say, developing those skill sets. As far as the stuff that I teach is just constantly, constantly repping it. It has to be wrapped, and it has to be rep in the sports world, with different situations, different scenarios, different games, different endings, different circumstances, tough. “Hey, can I really say this?” “Well, no, but say it this way,” making them a goal again, but then at the same time, making sure that that person knows, because we’re talking about insecurities now, people judging me, making fun of me, like even though they’re probably not, that everybody else in the class needs to know. This is a workshop. This is a dojo, like we’re practicing here. This is not the final event. This is not our Olympic 100 meter relay. Like, this is the dojo. We’re in the dojo now, and this is where you’re allowed to make mistakes. So that’s kind of the approach that I take.

Constanza: Yeah, I think similarly, when I teach Spanish language classes, I say, “look, first, in order to learn, you have to be here, right?” And I explained to my students why it matters, and I get to know them on a personal level, so that if someone isn’t here, you’ll hear my students say, “Yeah, I had to take a picture of an empty chair and text it to my friend Bobby, because they weren’t in class today,” because I’ll say “We missed you. You’re not here.” Like, “hope you’re doing okay. Check in.” I like to let them know. First and foremost, I notice if they’re not there. Second, this goes along with faculty too. Like, if I haven’t seen one of my faculty in a while, I’ll email them and say, “Oh my goodness, we haven’t connected. How are you? What’s going on? What are you teaching this week?” Because I want them to know I’m thinking about them, even if we don’t cross paths in the hallway. In educational development, similarly, if we’re not practicing our teaching skills or staying informed about what different and new pedagogies are, or different approaches, then it becomes really hard to pivot if we need to. And gosh, if COVID taught us anything, it’s that we need to be ready to pivot if something happens. And the blizzard showed us that as well, we suddenly went for a couple of days to remote learning. So we need to know how to be adaptable in a way that our students are able to absorb it. We need to be able to do that for educational development too. So we’ll do things in the teaching center like have one-on-one consults, and we’ll ask for follow ups from faculty if they want to. We hope that they do. And we’ll also not just do one off workshops, but we’ll do a workshop series, because I think you all can relate to the idea that sometimes you go to a workshop, you have tons of great ideas, but there isn’t follow up. And so that repetition that Christian’s talking about, we have a series of events, like a book group or a four-series workshop. Then folks have time to reflect upon what they’ve learned, think about implementation, and come back with questions, checking in with folks to say, “how was the pace of this session,” or “we talked about this approach you were going to take in the classroom, how did it go?” And actually showing that we care as educational developers in a way that is coaching, but also just again, genuine, is so important as well, because sometimes faculty might have tried something and it didn’t go the way that they planned, and they might be embarrassed or shy to come and talk to us and say “this didn’t work out.” So normalizing that as part of the process, and then to feedback like we talked about earlier, letting folks know, “Hey, you’re not the only one who’s experiencing disengagement. This week, we’ve seen an uptick in that” or “Yeah, like there does seem to be a lot of absences the day before spring break. It’s not just your class,” letting them know that it might feel personal, right? Because you’re saying, “oh my gosh, why did three students not show up to my class? I had a really great topic prepared.” “It’s not just you. There’s a trend that we’re seeing here.” I think that is really helpful.

John: One of the things you mentioned a couple of times was the importance of letting faculty know that they’re not alone. And as you said, reading groups or a series of workshops where faculty get to work together repeatedly, allows those things to naturally come out, and it’s so reassuring for faculty when they feel that they’re not the only ones experiencing those challenges.

Constanza: Yeah, and I think that is one of the beautiful things that we do in the teaching center that isn’t necessarily labeled as a service that we offer, but maybe it should be, and maybe that’s a way that we need to reframe the types of consults that we do. Maybe it’s a belonging consult, but everyone is different, right? So for me, I’m just like, “Oh, I’m meeting with Christian today, and we’ll see what we talk about.” And I genuinely get to know him as a human. I get to know what he teaches about. I get to say, “Huh, I have no idea about this. Can you teach me?” But yeah, I do think that one of the unspoken and unwritten rules in educational development is helping faculty engage with their students but also find their niche in the campus and sort of connecting the dots between what’s available for them and what can help enhance their teaching. So when we talk about coaching on the field and we talk about performance, we want athletes to be better, to feel more motivated, to have that drive and energy. We want the same thing for our instructors, too, but we also want them to know that not every single day goes perfectly. Just because we’re subject matter experts doesn’t mean that we have all the answers. And I think when we talk about that feeling of being alone on campus, that also means, if a student is going through something, and you’re a faculty member and you care about… I tell my faculty all the time, we have a lot of student-facing resources on campus. That is when you refer, like you’ve got something going on with a student and they need support that is outside of the scope of being an instructor in the room. That’s why we have care report, so that you can get that student the support that they need. And for faculty, we’re often the only faculty facing office on campus. So letting faculty know, “Oh, by the way, you’ve got somebody here. You’ve got a team here that is here just for you, so that if you’re navigating, let’s say, classroom management, we’re here to consult with you, to talk about what are some ways that you can navigate this. What are some approaches that you can take that are different than perhaps the ones that you’ve been taking?” So yeah, it’s really important not to feel alone, especially in teaching. It’s such a relational field.

Rebecca: One thing that I heard come out in the conversation today is maybe a need for this practice and repetition for fluency, but with variety. And I think repetition kind of implies, by its nature, that it could get boring really quick. So how do you, as a coach, bring in that variety so that it stays engaging?

Christian: Well, I think you just said it. Sports is all about repetition, shooting the same free throw 100 times, blocking the same way over and believe me, it gets boring, and you’re hoping that your coach can get creative. So we’ll just change the drill, and you feel like it’s new, but it’s technically the same thing. It just looks different, but the coach is still getting the same outcome that he wants, but now he’s got you reengaged, and you’re not bitching and complaining about being in the same old thing in week 10. I think that’s the same thing for teaching. It is, how could I create the same lesson plan or try to get the same thing across and they think that it’s actually different? And I try to do that as much as possible. Either I change the topic, I change the theme of it, because, you know, I get bored too. [LAUGHTER] I get bored. So, like, Man, [snap fingers] [LAUGHTER] I gotta snap out of this. Let’s kind of change where everybody sits. I don’t know, like, just do something different. That’s about as simple as I can get with that. Like, I think it’s the repetition is key, and you can’t get rid of it. You can’t ignore it. But I do think creating a different lesson plan that still has the same teeth as how it was originally set up to be, I think is important also.

Constanza: Yeah, and I think the same type of coaching practice happens in educational development too. Number one, not every single strategy or approach or recommendation, I make… Christian will laugh when I say this, but in our first weeks of mentorship, I was like, “Look, you don’t have to listen to me.” And he’s like, “But Constanza, I’m here. I want to listen to you.” And he’d always say that over and over again. And I was like, “Well, no Christian. What I mean by that is, I’m going to give you a variety of options. You choose what feels right for you, for your teaching style, for your teaching approach.” So we have to offer variety, because folks may or may not be comfortable with one solution that we give. We might need to give them a variety so that they say, “Oh, this one feels like it fits for me or for my context,” because, again, as I mentioned at the beginning of this episode, I often am not very familiar with the subject matter that the faculty member is coming in with. So I’m there to talk about the teaching strategies. Number two, there are so many books on educational development, they keep coming out. Why? Because our students and our faculty are changing in terms of their expectations, what they need. So we need to adapt, and there will always be books on educational development, because we’re still learning more about how we learn, and again, the people who are in front of us change. So I think, on that note, too, we need to constantly be offering variety. If I only offered the same three workshops every single year, I would not have attendance, because faculty will say, “Well, I’ve seen that. That’s old. Teach me something new.” So if we want to engage faculty, then we need to give them new approaches. Or if we’re talking about student engagement, which is something that we’ve always been talking about, we need to talk about different ways that they can approach that. So to Christian’s point, yes, it’s the same topic, but it’s a different way of explaining it, or it’s a different idea, or it’s having faculty perhaps present themselves and say, “This has really worked well for me in the classroom. Let me show you how I do it.” We have one instructor who, he came in last summer, and he said, “Constanza, I’m going to upend my class, and I want to talk to you about it.” And I said, “All right, tell me more.” And so he decided to use flipped learning for all of his classes. He started with one, and now this semester, he’s using it for all of them in a really different and unique way. And then he delivered a presentation about it a few weeks ago to talk about the implications of that in the age of AI, which is not how we would have talked about flipped learning even five years ago. So we all need a refresh on our teaching. And the other thing I’ll add to what Christian said is, if you don’t, it gets boring for you too. I know even teaching three sections of the same course back to back, by the third section, I’m like, “Okay, did I say this in this section, or did I say it in the section before?” We need to spice it up for ourselves so that we can have the passion to then share with our students. It’s so important.

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

Christian: Is world domination too aggressive? [LAUGHTER]

John: It seems to be really popular right now.

Christian: Oh, that’s true. [LAUGHTER] True. World domination in the teaching profession, that is what’s next for us. I’m going to speak for Constanza as well, because we feel like we have a really good message, and I think we have a real unique way of sharing and explaining that message. And so what’s next for us, from a partnership, is trying to find unique and creative ways to share what we have learned. And that’s the easiest way I could express it. Constanza, you do the academic version and clean it up for me.

Constanza: I think just to add to what Christian has said, I really, really enjoy working with Christian. It’s not every single day that you get to go home and say, “Yeah, today I work with an NFL two time Super Bowl champion,” and remember, I know nothing about football. So it’s really cool how we came from such different spaces, and yet found so many parallels in the work that we do. I really appreciate the openness that Christian has. It takes a lot of courage to be vulnerable in teaching. We know this, and to talk so openly about “Here’s what I’ve learned in my last year or so of teaching.” And I’m really excited, because I think, to Christian’s point, we’ll be able to help a lot of other instructors just by talking about the work that we’re doing. So I’m really excited that Christian has agreed to work with me in this way, and we’re just so grateful for being able to be here with you both today to talk a little bit about what we’re doing.

John: Well, thank you. It’s been great talking to both of you, and to meet you, Christian and to talk to you again, Constanza, and the message that you have about working together to improve teaching is one, as the director of a teaching center, I’d like to see a whole lot more of because we can all learn from each other and sharing our ideas in a world in which things are evolving so rapidly in higher ed, can be really helpful rather than trying to deal with everything alone.

Rebecca: Finding ways to reframe, using coaching and other frames can be really helpful to spice things up and provide that variety, even if the underlying techniques and things are really the same.

Christian: This last thing, and we’ll cap it, when I talk to coaches, coaches in the NFL and college, when I talk to them about their philosophy on coaching, they all end up saying, you know, we’re just teachers. They say the same thing that we’re saying I’m saying, “Oh…” they go, “No, we’re just teachers,” and they just use a different word for it.

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to sharing this with our audience,

Christian: Yeah, can’t wait to hear it. Appreciate you guys having us on.

Constanza: Thank you both.

[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 Madison Lee.

[MUSIC]

418. The Lift

It’s easy to become discouraged and disconnected in today’s higher ed climate. In this episode, Kelvin Thompson joins us to discuss his new project designed to provide us with a lift in challenging times.

Kelvin is the Vice Provost for Online Strategy and Teaching Innovation at the University of Louisville. Kelvin developed the BlendKit Course open courseware as part of the Blended Learning Toolkit which he developed while at the University of Central Florida. He regularly serves as an invited speaker on issues related to online and blended learning. Kelvin is a co-editor of the Sage Handbook of Online Higher Education and has long served as a co-host of TOPcast: The Teaching Online Podcast.

Transcript

John: It’s easy to become discouraged and disconnected in today’s higher ed climate. In this episode, we discuss a new project designed to provide us with a lift in challenging times.

[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 Kelvin Thompson. Kelvin is the Vice Provost for Online Strategy and Teaching Innovation at the University of Louisville. Kelvin developed the BlendKit Course open courseware as part of the Blended Learning Toolkit which he developed while at the University of Central Florida. He regularly serves as an invited speaker on issues related to online and blended learning. Kelvin is a co-editor of the Sage Handbook of Online Higher Education and has long served as a co-host of TOPcast: The Teaching Online Podcast. Welcome back, Kelvin.

Kelvin: Thanks very much. Good to be here. Thanks for having me, Rebecca and John.

John: Good to talk to you again. And today’s teas are… Kelvin, do you have tea or do you have some coffee with you? [LAUGHTER]

Kelvin: You know, I try to… when in Rome… I made tea. This is a jasmine green tea of indistinct provenance. Very nice.

Rebecca: I have English breakfast today. John… stressful morning.

John: And I have a pineapple ginger tea…

Kelvin: Ooh, that sounds good.

John: …from the Republic of tea, so a somewhat more defined provenance.

Kelvin: Yes, upscale, none of this swill like Kelvin drinks.

Rebecca: I’m lucky I have any tea today. We’ve invited you here today to discuss your transition from regular podcast to what you refer to as a not quite a newsletter on LinkedIn called The Lift insights and inspiration for academic innovation, digital learning and leading, which is accompanied by an audio version on SoundCloud. Can you talk a little bit about the origin of this not quite a newsletter?

Kelvin: Sure. Thanks for that. As our existing podcast was reaching some kind of a point where we might be winding it down, I’ve kind of enjoyed, I think you can probably appreciate this, enjoyed the sort of the process of having to think regularly about organizing your thoughts in some way toward a wider audience, outside of, like just the voices in your head. And I was thinking, Well, what might I do to have some kind of contribution to the community? And I’ve been kind of watching some of the podcast numbers, and podcasting seems to be continuing to evolve. And I thought, well, I seem to get a steady flow of newsletters personally and professionally. And I had run across the concept of LinkedIn as a newsletter platform… had sat in on a webinar about LinkedIn newsletters a while back, and I thought, well, let me explore that. I say not quite a newsletter. I don’t know what a newsletter actually is. I mean, the ones that I subscribe to, they vary, but most of them are sort of like straight prose, and I didn’t really quite want to do that. And most are, like, responding in some way to some kind of current event. I didn’t necessarily quite want to do that. So that’s some of the core ingredients.

Rebecca: Yeah, I don’t know how you knew about the voices in my head.

Kelvin: I was just talking about the ones in mine.

John: So we’ve long been fans of TOPCast, and I was really sorry to hear that it’s winding down, but it sounds like you are leaving open the possibility of continuing to some extent, but are going to be going on a hiatus with a countdown to your final official release of that. Could you talk to us a little bit more about that?

Kelvin: We had our 10-year anniversary, and we’re far less prolific with our release schedule and less ambitious than you all are. We started out as once a month, and then in 2020 we thought it was a good idea in January to start doing twice a month, little did we know, and so we’ve continued that on for the last five years. So we had our 10-year anniversary back in April/May of 2025 and it was a good time to take stock. And we noticed that the listens were significantly decreasing. We looked at wide podcast data. We looked at our specific podcast listens. We looked at kind of the state of the field in terms of online digital education, and kind of figured it must be somewhat us. And did we really want to continue to drip and drab this all the way out to the end, or go out strong and being sort of completists and round number enthusiasts, we thought, well, even though we passed the 10-year mark, which was a kind of a round number, episode, 200 was still coming up. So we would just set that as an arbitrary goal, and so we’ll be a little past the 10 and a half year mark when we hit episode 200 and thought that would be a strong thing to really sprint toward, rather than crawl to the finish line. So we do sometimes say wind down, but we’re really trying to maintain a level of enthusiasm and energy, and tried to find little ways to goose a little additional novelty and energy as we get toward that episode number 200 and then, as you say, John, my co-host Tom Cavanagh, in particular, has been a vocal advocate of, well, I mean, don’t unsubscribe, because maybe we’ll want to say something about something, and we’ll show up and just surprise you in the feed. And, I mean, we’ll see. Maybe we can’t stay away. You know, some people retire and they show up for work the next day. I don’t know if that’s going to be us, but probably not on nearly the schedule that we have been on.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about moving to LinkedIn for your not quite a newsletter? A lot of people use Medium and some other formats and deliver it to your inbox. And this is a slightly different format.

Kelvin: It is, and I gave it some thought. I mean, Substack, Medium, and I did mention that LinkedIn newsletter webinar that I really sat through a couple of years ago and made a lot of notes. I had been thinking about this for a while. Sometimes I let things simmer on the back burner for a bit, and the timing wasn’t quite right, but I was interested by LinkedIn as a newsletter platform. And I think what was most appealing was the fact that instead of like starting from scratch on a new platform, that the LinkedIn newsletter thing is basically just tapping into your existing connections and followers on LinkedIn, and especially your first issue through their newsletter tool gives like a one time invitation to all of your followers and connections to subscribe. So I thought that was sort of a running jumpstart, if you will. And then it was an opportunity to sort of unify, because of already engaging on LinkedIn, to some extent, then the newsletter is sort of complementary to that. I thought all of that had a synergy to it, maybe in a way that a Substack or a Medium might not. So I thought it was worth at least trying on LinkedIn.

John: And some advantages of LinkedIn, besides that already large base of followers, is that the listeners do not have to pay for it, as they would, perhaps with Medium. And also, there have been a number of people have been moving away from Substack recently. To be honest, I haven’t found out why, but I’ve seen a lot of people mentioning that they’re transitioning to a new format. And also, going back just to podcasting, we used to get many of our guests from things we saw posted on Twitter or on other social media sites, and that pretty much has dried up. And we get many more comments about our podcast on LinkedIn now than we ever did on any of the other platforms. So it’s become perhaps a better way of sharing information with an academic audience than the other social media sites that used to do a moderately good job of that in the past.

Kelvin: Yeah, I agree with you, and while I have tried to keep a toe in the water of Bluesky and Mastodon, I haven’t ventured out farther than that. I’m not really active on Facebook, so spin offs from that weren’t something I was really interested in, and I haven’t really mastered the kind of visual communication literacy that Instagram might necessitate. But yes, LinkedIn seems to be where I see most of the professional kinds of interaction, certainly more long form than Twitter back in the day, and I think people have less of an appetite for lots of posts,I think. So space out your posts [LAUGHTER] a little bit more and they’re a little bit longer. But that being said, yeah, it seems to be where the professional dialog is coming and the dialog is more substantive post and then comments, kind of like micro blogging, truly. I mean, we used to kind of use that phraseology around Twitter, but I think more so of like key post, and then responses, more than just the little micro post, micro post, micro post. Anyway, I’ve been fascinated, probably like you, to see how the spaces evolve, and yes, I really appreciate you bringing up. I wasn’t a real big fan of the idea of people having to… I mean, I don’t know… people only like me so much, and I’m just happy if they engage at all, and to do it for a fee hmm, that seemed egregious and unlikely to have any kind of positive outcome.

Rebecca: One of the things that I really enjoyed about your opening not newsletter, is the way that you framed The Lift. Can you talk a little bit about the framing of this particular communication strategy that you’re using?

Kelvin: [LAUGHTER] Maybe to a fault, I tried to unpack the metaphor in a multi-faceted way in that opening issue to really say something aspirational about what I was intending to undertake. So, lift, from like an emotional standpoint, to bring a little bit of mood elevation, to raise our gaze more aspirationally to the horizon. A lift in terms of like, I think I told this story in the first issue, I had a colleague who offered me a lift in his car from time to time when I was in my first few years at my former institution. And so sometimes we need to depend on other people a little bit, because maybe we’re not so up for it today. You know, today’s a rough day, and you need to lean on your colleague a little bit, and then maybe tomorrow, I’ll need to lean on you a little bit. So in all of those ways, the lift, as a construct, as a metaphor, started appealing to me. True story, a little back story. Like I said, I had this idea brewing for a while, ever since that LinkedIn newsletter webinar, and so I kept periodically coming back to it and thinking, well, what would I call it? And I told a little bit of this story in that first issue as well. I had always been very inspired by these words from Dr. Dale Whittaker that much of what we aspire to in higher education is about two things that are intertwined, lifting lives and lifting livelihoods. And since coming here to the University of Louisville, I’ve sometimes talked about the lever that is online, digital, schedule flexible kind of options. So for a while there, I thought about the lever as a title. I thought about the lever and the lift, kind of like the Globe and Mail. And then I thought, Well, gee whiz, you are full of yourself, aren’t you? That’s ponderous. That’s not going to work. And shoved it back into the recesses of my mind or down the screen in terms of the brainstorming Google Docs that I maintain. And then as we decided to really set an end date for TOPCast, I really thought, Well, okay, now is the time to do something. And then with just the… there’s a lot of heaviness in the first part of 2025 in higher education. And I thought, well, The Lift, maybe lean into all of that. Maybe it’s a coalescence of events and circumstances. So I don’t know, it worked for me. I hope it works for you.

John: I think it’s a wonderful metaphor for getting that message across at a time when I think we can all use a bit of a lift. And speaking of a lift, one of the things that continues into this, not quite a newsletter, is some reference to coffee in every issue to date, I believe. How did that become part of TOPCast, and is this going to continue through every issue of The Lift?

Kelvin: The short answer to the last question is, yes, I expect there to be some sort of a bean boost. I call it upping your coffee game a little bit in every issue, unless I kind of have this open call out the thought really is to bring about some sort of embodied mood elevation via food or beverage. And I kind of have a somewhat well-earned reputation as a coffee guy. Some people have said that I’m knowledgeable. I don’t know that that’s true. And some people throw around words like connoisseur. I know that’s not true, but I do dabble, and I have learned a few things. And I thought, well, I mean, coffee is definitely a mood elevator. And I’m amazed at the number of folks who just haven’t made fundamental steps to raise their coffee game. There are some key things that I’ve learned that, do a few little changes, and you’re going to be drinking better coffee and having a better benefit. But I have this open invitation, if maybe you’re a gourmet chef and like, here’s the one thing I’ve learned that people do poorly in cooking food on a stove, tell us. Or here’s the key thing to know about tea drinking, like don’t have an indistinct, indeterminate provenance, go to a good supplier. That’s probably a good tip. So if you, John, wanted to write a little blurb, see, I would slide it in there with attribution. That would be the first tea mood elevation in The Lift. Other than that, yeah, by default, I’ll do something about coffee. And the reason that it showed up on TOPCast… I had this local reputation as a coffee person, and when we were recording the pilot episode, or right before that, not unlike how I describe the backstory to The Lift, Tom and I had been interviewing podcasters in late 2014, early 2015 doing concept development, thinking about what we could do. And it was taking on a life of its own. It was going to be very involved. And he had enough one day, I think we might have been sitting in a cafe, and he said, you know, sort of almost metaphorically, like rip the page out of the notebook and crumple up the paper. He said, “How about we don’t do any of this. Why don’t we just get into a room, you bring, like, a thermos of coffee, and we just have a conversation.” I mean, I don’t think anybody’s gonna listen to that, but you’re the boss, and hey, we’ll give it a shot. And we got lucky, because it really sort of worked for us, and we just kind of kept going.

John: And it was a very well timed podcast as online education was spreading, and there weren’t very many other podcasts that addressed it at the time, and I don’t think there still are very many that address online specifically, but all have started to include much more of it, especially since 2020 with that whole mess.

Rebecca: One of the things that I observed in your not newsletter are like a little section of discussion prompts to have with a colleague. Can you talk a little bit about that section?

Kelvin: Sure. Another reason that this is not quite a newsletter is I’ve tried to think in terms of modularity, like little discrete pieces that maybe some of the other pieces wouldn’t work for you, but maybe this piece would be a go to, and one of those is this idea of like reflection or discussion prompts, and a key part of the not quite a newsletter, is that I’ve been… I say often, I don’t do pithy, it’s not completely true. I do. It just takes a heck of a lot of work. But I’ve been collecting little sayings, little idioms from colleagues for years, and we haven’t even gotten to the ones that I’ve derived myself from interacting with smart, wise people, and I kind of wanted to do something about that, sharing it so that didn’t just die with me someday. So the discussion or reflection questions are in relation to sharing one such little wise word saying that I have found useful. So the sharing of those wise words, by itself, is a little nugget, and I do a little brief video where I unpack if you were interested more, you could learn a little bit more. I got a face made for radio. So not a lot of people go over to the YouTube thing and listen further than the one line thing, but I’m hopeful that maybe an individual having read that little one liner of wise words, might be willing to just scroll down a little bit and ponder a little reflection based on those prompts. Or, I think we have such opportunity to dialog with colleagues. And then sometimes it seems like, I mean, we’re surrounded by such smart, capable people, but to dig a little deeper, we don’t always know where to start. So actually, just to have some prompts that you could say, “Hey, we’re going to use this as a warm up for our team meeting,” or, “Hey, can we have a cup of coffee and just kind of springboard off of these questions about that?” I just thought it would be something that might be useful for a subset of people who open the newsletter, and if not, maybe something else. Maybe the coffee bit will be something valuable. I just hope that there’s something in each issue that somebody will find useful.

John: As we talked about briefly before, you’re releasing this also in an audio version. How has that been received? What’s the sort of mix you get? And also, what is the process there? Do you start with a text version and go to audio or do you start with an audio one and then generate the text from that?

Kelvin: All good questions. I didn’t really set out to do another podcast of any sort. I kind of thought that the idea of even pursuing newsletter as a genre or a venue. The reason I did that is I kind of thought that not everybody is going to listen to a podcast. Boy, there were certainly a lot of Substacks and Mediums and so forth, as you say, and people on LinkedIn. And so I thought, well, something that’s text, text visual primarily, might have a better uptake. And then, if I can make it modular, as I discussed, maybe that’s useful. But then, after I did the first one, then I took the contrary view. See the rebuttal came from the voices in my head, Rebecca. And I thought, Well, I kind of miss speaking into a microphone. And then I thought, I’m not always up for reading one of these newsletters that comes into my inbox. I did skip the fact, by the way, that while on the LinkedIn newsletter platform, while you get, like, a posting with a link, anybody who subscribes to the newsletter, they do get the little email prompting in the same way that you might with those other platforms. I thought when those things come into my email box, sometimes I just let them sit there. I’m like, I don’t feel like reading, or I’m about to get in the car, and I love listening to podcasts or the occasional audio book while I’m doing something else, driving down the road, or walking the dog, or that kind of a thing. I thought, well, I’ve got all this stuff anyway. And John, to your point, I develop out the textual graphic thing. And then I thought, well, what would an audio edition of this thing be like? And it’s primarily an audio performance of the sort of the opening essay, and then sort of a description of some of the other elements. And I mean, it’s brief, they’re about like 15 minutes, give or take, which is half the length of the run time of TOPCast at about 30 minutes. But based on the data that I’ve got, which admittedly is not tremendous on LinkedIn… no offense to LinkedIn… the analytics are kind of rough hewn, but there’s many, many, many, many, many more people who have article accesses in that textual graphic format than the data from SoundCloud would indicate are listening to that audio edition. It’s more of a niche. Maybe it is just the odd person who I’m not going to read your thing, I can’t be bothered to scroll or I want to listen in the car. So there’s definitely people that are steadily accessing the audio edition, but there’s no comparison. And maybe that’s because it’s sort of the audio edition of this textual, graphic newsletter, rather than a true podcast. And maybe it’s because on TOPCast, it’s all very conversational, and not unlike your podcast here, it’s more of a scripted format in this 15 minute audio edition of The Lift. So will it stay around? I don’t know, and unless it becomes burdensome in some way, probably, but I don’t know if that’s gonna become the tail that wags the dog.

Rebecca: It does seem like you use the multimodal lens in thinking about online teaching and learning and the way that you designed this experience, and that there’s like text and visual in video and audio components. I mean, it feels very UDL of you.

Kelvin: Well, yes, I mean, I think that’s an occupational hazard. In fact, I reached out to, I kind of put a little advisory group together to the prototype pilot issue and asked for some feedback. And that was very scientific. I went to, like, the last 10 or 15 people that I had individual messages with on LinkedIn, and I just reached out to them and said, “Will you take a look at this and see what you think?” And one colleague pushed me a little bit on the accessibility part, even though I had done alt text and so forth, just even making more explicit, which I have mixed feelings about, but for images, in the caption for images, taking more of alt text kind of approach, even though actual alt text was already there, so that’s interesting, but it is sort of an occupational hazard in this field to think about things from a multimodal, UDL kind of a standpoint. So here’s hoping that it’s walking the talk.

John: One thing that surprised me with our podcast from the beginning is the number of people who only look at the transcripts. I never expected that. I will look at a transcript if someone referred to something that I want to look up later, or if there’s some reference that I want to go back and pay more attention to. But the advantage of podcasts for me is that you can listen while you’re doing all those things that you said, while you’re driving, while you’re doing other things where you don’t need continuous focus, but we get a lot on both. So it’s nice to have both options.

Rebecca: I though he was going to point me out as someone who likes to read transcripts.

Kelvin: I’ll tell you, I’ve been sort of a loyalist to Apple podcasts, I guess, through the years, out of habit than anything else. And when a year or two ago, Apple podcasts started just sliding in AI generated transcripts, regardless of whether the podcaster had an actual, carefully constructed transcript or not, I have found a lot of affordance in that. There’s too many times I’ve been listening to a podcast and then driving down the road, used my interface with my phone to do a voice activated voice to text text message to try to capture one little phrase at a time, like a quote from a podcast, pause the thing and then “send message to Kelvin.” “What would you like to say to Kelvin,” “from Tea for teaching podcast episode number one zillion and six quote.” The key thing to remember is comma…” You want to send it or re-record it?” “Send it.” “What did they say?” So getting to that transcript now and actually pulling it up and like, oh, that’s what they said, you know, copy, paste, put it into my notes folder. I like it.

Rebecca: Yeah, it’s handy, for sure.

John: It’s really nice to have it. At the time of this recording, the most recent issue of the lift is Issue five. We’re recording a bit further ahead than we generally have in the past, so there may be more issues by the time you listen to this.

KELVON: Here’s hoping.

John: And one of the things you mentioned in there was the starfish story that we hear at so many professional development workshops about someone seeing all these dying starfish on the beach and throwing them back in and… well, I’ll let you tell the story. And one of the things you note, though, is that story is flawed in some fundamental ways. Can you share that argument with our listeners? I thought it was an interesting argument.

Kelvin: Picking up the typical story from where you left off all the starfish dead or lying there wounded or whatever on the beach, and an individual is seen hurling individual starfish back into the ocean waves, and some sort of outsider figure comes up and says, “Well, you know, you’re not making any kind of a difference,” kind of gesturing into the field of view of these countless starfish littering the beach, and then the protagonist, stoically reaches down, picks up a starfish, throws it into the ocean, and says, “Well, made a difference to that one,” and boom, that’s the mic drop punch line. And I’ve held on to that story. I have found it compelling. I have shared that in individual one-on-one conversations, in conference presentations or keynote engagements, but I’ve adopted over time in the podcast or in writing, if I’m about to put back out some sort of commonly used quote or idiom, I’ve started trying to source check myself. I mean, fact check may not be quite the right word, because I don’t know that there ever was, like a person on the beach with the starfish. Somebody devised that. And like, before I propagate this further, is that actually good? And then I was also pondering this whole idea about making a difference. And I started going there. I was going to do something with that. I mean, call it hackneyed, if you want, with that often used story illustration. And it turns out, step one, it’s wrong, ecologically, that’s bad. Don’t do it if you find yourself on a shoreline somewhere littered with starfish, the best move you can make as a human with compassion for living creatures and for the planet and its ecosystem, sadly, best I can tell… Google it, check for yourself… the best thing you can do, walk away, let everything just be the way it is. Google it, you’ll find out. And I’m like, well, dang, that messed up a perfectly good story illustration, but then I was pondering that further. And the reason I’ve held on to that illustration, personally, in so many individual conversations, is sometimes it’s what I found it most useful for is, you’ve got this internal locus of control. You can do something. And in my old institution, a couple of presidents back there were two lines that a historic president said that got woven into the fabric at the University of Central Florida, and there’s still vestiges of these today, I think. This President said, “accent on excellence, accent on the individual.” And that individual centrality thing made a difference to that one. You can’t do everything, but you can do something. That idea, I always found very salient, very powerful, and I’m like, wow. Well, that messes up everything, if it’s not a good thing to propagate. And here’s where I got to, John and Rebecca, is I think that internal locus of control thing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for making a difference via academic Innovation, digital learning, leading any of the various important work that we aspire to in higher education. It’s necessary. You have to take responsibility for doing something in your purview. But it’s not sufficient. You will not, personally by yourself, accomplish the kind of scale of impact that is necessary, that we are aspiring to, in the, shall we say, currently fraught sector of at least American higher education. It’s going to take partnering, and it’s going to take this emphasis on the human, this emphasis on vulnerability and compromise and working together and finding common ground, and maybe be willing to set aside my priority to connect with your priority and be in service of that, because we’re going in the same direction, and that kind of a thing, that’s what’s going to be important to make a difference, and the starfish story, by itself, won’t get you there.

John: And it’s all too common for people to be working in their own silos, ignoring the fact that everyone else is having their own struggles. And by working together, the impact can be much larger. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a time in higher education where there have been so many threats to our continued existence.

Rebecca: Yeah, and I think you can find it difficult to figure out what you can do individually sometimes too. And so I think the ecosystem that you’re suggesting within an institution and across institutions is a really powerful way to think about it, rather than kind of an individual. This ecosystem model is key. I think that’s why your reflection questions were resonating with me when I was re-reading some of your not so newsletters. And that’s because I feel like right now, people feel really drained with so much going on that the conversations that I’m often having in the hallway… they don’t have any content. [LAUGHTER] It’s like, “Hi, how are you?” “Fine?” …but not really, but we’re just going to say fine, because that’s what you do, and then you kind of move forward to kind of remind us that could have more substantive conversations on a regular basis, even though we feel really drained.

Kelvin: Yeah, I think that’s a slightly troubling but cogent observation of situations across so very many of our institutions, higher ed wise.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about some of the topics you’re hoping to… we’ve hinted at some of the ones that you’ve already talked about in your not so newsletter. But what are some of the ways that you see the not so newsletter going forward, or the kinds of things you might address?

Kelvin: Yeah, I suppose the short answer is, I really don’t know. The longer answer is I have pretty deep bench of wise word expressions, sayings, either the ones that I’ve collected or the ones that I’ve coined through my decades in K-12 education and then higher education. So I’m constantly thumbing through those. And then I guess what I look for is an intersection of wise word expression, current moment in time that we’re living through in higher ed, not so much like a discrete news item, but like dynamics, like listening to the conversations that I’m hearing at my institution, or I’m seeing on LinkedIn, or there’s several daily news feeds… higher ed related… that I scroll through, and I’m sort of like using that as a bit of a filter when it’s time to gin up the next issue. So I’m sometimes thinking like an issue or two ahead, but I try not to get too far ahead of it, and try to stay somewhat grounded in the now with an eye toward the more timeless, which I would say is the nature of those wise word expressions, but that’s a long way of saying. One, don’t know for sure, but two, everything I think so far will be in service of our collective multifaceted ability to work together in service of important, aspirational higher ed goals that serve an ever expanding, widening range of potential learners. So that’s a lot to unpack, but it’s got to line up with that, because that’s what keeps me coming back in what I hope we’re doing increasingly better job of serving those potentially wider conceptualized group of learners, not just the same students that we had last year, but how can we do better serving a wider range of students.

John: And speaking of a changing mix of students, could you talk a little bit about how your new position at Louisville differs from your prior role at UCF?

Kelvin: Yeah, happy to. I currently serve here at the University of Louisville as Vice Provost for Online Strategy and Teaching Innovation, as you said. And honestly, I was for the record, happy where I was, doing what I was doing, and who I was doing it with. And on August 30, 2022, I happened to open the email that day, but when I did, the juxtaposition of roles in that title got my attention. Not all positions that have responsibility for online learning or that have responsibility for teaching and learning centers juxtapose online strategy and teaching innovation in that way. So I was intrigued. I’ve always liked to have a kind of a foot in both of those worlds. Where I came from at UCF, there was a bit of a division, for historical reasons, between the Karen L. Smith Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning and the Center for Distributed Learning. Although those organizations have worked really well for a long time, I found myself often as the little…. whatever they call, those things on the Lego bricks that allow one brick to connect to the next, those little protrusions… I found myself to be that protrusion from the Center for Distributed Learning that was always connecting with the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. So I was always interested in that holistic work. So this is a more overarching, holistic role. But then also, of course, my former role, I was Executive Director for the Center for Distributed Learning. I had this multifaceted, but still very online, blended digital learning focus. And in that role, I reported to Vice Provost for Digital Learning, Dr. Tom Cavanagh, who is still currently my TOPCast co-host. So here I have a Vice Provost title. The organization’s quite different, a little bit smaller, more diverse mission than my former one. The institution as a whole here is about a third the size of UCF. But interestingly, both R1s, both community engaged, both in that recent Carnegie classification new description, higher access, higher earnings. Both institutions share all of those and there’s only eight institutions nationwide that share all three of those descriptors. So the nature of the work broadly is similar, and a metropolitan research university context, that’s all similar, but then the organizational context is quite different. UCF celebrated its 60th birthday after I left, and the University of Louisville claims over 225 years of history. So as you can imagine, there’s a bit of traditionalism and friction and steadiness that has both upsides and downsides when you’re engaging in academic innovation kind of work.

John: One other difference, I would think, is that UCF has long been involved with online and blended learning, and I think that’s a relatively more recent area for Louisville. Is that correct?

Kelvin: Certainly does not go back as far at U of L as it does at UCF, but there has been activity in this space for a good 20 plus years. But it certainly is some kind of a signifier that this role that I am in currently was newly conceptualized in order to be searched for. So it reflects a little bit of a new strategic focus. What else can we do in this area more thoughtfully? So we’re working on it for sure. But yes, that is absolutely true. So the first online class was taught at UCF in the summer of 1996 so for the sake of argument, call it 66 to 96 there’s 30 years. So for if we just want to be just really rough hewn about it, for nearly half of its existence, UCF has relied heavily on online, blended, and digital education. It’s a relative drop in the pan… the University of Louisville if we say 20 years and it’s 225 plus years old. I mean, that’s what, less than 10% of its history. [LAUGHTER] So that puts things in perspective, I guess.

Rebecca: Like, it’s always helpful as we’re thinking about ways to reach across universities, as we’re thinking about this ecosystem that we’re talking about earlier, to better understand how institutions are quite different from one another. And just to get a feel for institutions that have similarities and differences from your own.

John: And I think it’s really nice to see that combination of focus on teaching and learning as well as distributed learning in one location, because when they’re done separately, you often have somewhat different directions that may not always align, or a duplication of effort that could be avoided. I think a lot of institutions have been moving in that direction.

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

Kelvin: What’s next? Well, I plan to see TOPCast through its 200th episode, and if Tom has his way, the occasional beyond, I hope to continue to release The Lift on a steady schedule. I’ve reached some sort of an intersection of priorities that has slowed down the current month’s release, but I’m committed to keeping that going for at least through a year. And I guess I would welcome, if you don’t mind, your listeners to check it out and send some feedback. What do you like? What do you not like? What would make it more useful as a personal resource? If you don’t mind a shout out using the URL shortening service dub, you can get to the lift on the LinkedIn newsletter platform by going to dub.sh/thelift, all lowercase, no spaces. I’d love to hear what listeners of t for teaching find. Just one and done. Just try it out. Just take a look. Pick one of the issues that you like, and shoot a little note over on LinkedIn, or hit me up on Gmail, drkelvinthompson@gmail.com. I would love to hear, “you know, I’m never coming back to this, and here’s why.” Or, “you know, it’d be a little better if you did this.” Or “I’m going to share this with five friends today.” I mean, I’d love to hear any of that. It’d be okay. Is that all right? You’re going to edit that part out, aren’t you?

John: No. In fact, we will include a link to those in the show notes as well. So if anyone didn’t quite write it down, you can always go back to the show notes for the episode and find those links to both The Lift itself as well as to the SoundCloud version of it.

Rebecca: Well, thanks so much for joining us. It’s always a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk to you.

Kelvin: Oh, likewise. I mean, you all are a delight. I continue to peruse the Tea for Teaching feed. I routinely share episodes from your podcast out through our faculty facing teaching related newsletter here and with colleagues via email and elsewhere. You all are doing great work, and people probably don’t tell you that nearly enough, but thank you.

John: Well, thank you. And we’ve often shared many episodes of TOPCast out to our faculty as well, so I’m hoping we’ll still see some more of those coming out. And one other thing we should mention is your last official episode is the one that’s going to be recorded at OLC, I believe.

Kelvin: Yes, in November of 2025 at OLC Accelerate Tom and I’ve been invited to do a plenary panel of sorts where we’re going to just do an episode. We’re calling it last call at the TOPCast Cafe, and we’re going to look back across the 10 and a half years a little bit for distilling some kind of insights, and look forward a little bit and try to have some kind of encouraging word for the community broadly. And then that session that we record, it might have some light editing on it, but it will then release in January of 2026 as TOPCast episode 200.

Rebecca: Mark your calendars.

John: Thanks again.

Kelvin: Pleasure being with 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.

John: Editing Assistance provided by Ryan Metzler.

[MUSIC]

417. Life Skills in the Liberal Arts

Students engage when they see a connection between what they are learning and their future objectives. In this episode, Angela Bauer joins us to discuss the benefits of integrating life skills into a liberal arts curriculum. Angela is a biologist and the Provost and Executive Vice President at Texas Women’s University. Prior to this, she served in several  leadership positions at High Point University. Angela is also the author of Teaching Life Skills in the Liberal Arts and Sciences: Preparing Students for Success Beyond the Classroom which has recently been released by Taylor and Francis.

Show Notes

  • Bauer, A. C. (2025). Teaching Life Skills in the Liberal Arts and Sciences: Preparing Students for Success Beyond the Classroom. Taylor & Francis.
  • NACE Competencies
  • Rebecca Winthrop and Jenny Anderson (2025). The Disengaged Teen. Tea for Teaching podcast. Episode 374. January 1.
  • Anderson, Jenny and Rebecca Winthrop (2025). The Disengaged Teen: Helping Kids Learn Better, Feel Better, and Live Better. Penguin Random House.
  • TILT Higher Ed
  • Angela Bauer (2018). Closing the performance gap. Tea for Teaching podcast. Episode 49. October 3.
  • Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators. New York: Basic Book. PP, 3-31.
  • Access to Innovators series – High Point University
  • Ethical Reasoning in Action. James Madison University

Transcript

John: Students engage when they see a connection between what they are learning and their future objectives. In this episode, we discuss integrating life skills into a liberal arts curriculum.

[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 Angela Bauer. Angela is a biologist and the Provost and Executive Vice President at Texas Women’s University. Prior to this, she served in several leadership positions at High Point University. Angela is also the author of Teaching Life Skills in the Liberal Arts and Sciences: Preparing Students for Success Beyond the Classroom which has recently been released by Taylor and Francis. Welcome back, Angela.

Angela: Thank you so much, Rebecca, and good to see you and John. It’s been a while, but I’m so happy to be here.

John: We’re very glad to talk to you again. We were very glad to see you have this new book that just came out. Today’s teas are:… Angela, are you drinking tea?

Angela: I am. I have a ginger turmeric tea, which I am enjoying, and in full transparency, I do also need something a little bit more high octane in the morning, so I have a cup of very strong coffee right next to my tea. But I wanted to be a team player, so I’ve got the tea. [LAUGHTER]

John: Very good.

Rebecca: I appreciate the team play, for sure. I have Scottish breakfast this morning, John.

John: And I have black raspberry green tea today.

Angela: Oh, that sounds delicious.

John: It really is, for me, at least ,Rebecca may have a different view.

Rebecca: Yeah, I’m not a big fan of the berry teas, but we have a nice eclectic mix today, so that’s good, something for everyone. We’ve invited you here today to discuss Teaching Life Skills in Liberal Arts and Sciences. Can you tell us a little bit about the origin story of the book?

Angela: I’d be really happy to. This book has been in the making for quite some time. I would say even its origins began when I was a student. I am a product of a liberal arts education, and the impact of that was really transformative on my life in terms of how it influenced me to view the world through different lenses, depending on the situation, and to just be a lifelong learner, to be curious about things in a way that that education really instilled in me, that mindset, that it instilled in me. As I went through the ranks as a faculty member, of course, I held very much to those traditions. As a biologist, I contributed courses to the traditional [LAUGHTER] science requirement within the liberal arts core. But over time, as I rose through leadership positions in higher ed, I became more aware of sometimes the disconnect between the value of what we’re providing within the classroom in a liberal arts education and how that prepares students for their professional paths. So I want to start by saying that there are so many things that happen within the context of a liberal arts education that prepare you so well for any professional setting, in terms of your ability to look at problems from multiple perspectives, to write in a way that is clear and cogent and all the good things, and to communicate your ideas in a way that is effective and that and tailored for your audience. I mean, there are so many ways in which my liberal arts education prepared me for the world in a variety of ways, regardless of what my chosen profession would be, and I saw that happening in my students. But I also, over time, saw a disconnect sometimes between what students viewed happening within their liberal arts courseworks… they really weren’t quite getting what we were accomplishing in terms of how that related to what they would need to do in their future professions. So there was that. That doesn’t mean that we weren’t doing great things to prepare them for their professions, but they were kind of missing the connection. And by the way, we found that out in great detail when I served as Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at High Point University where we did surveys of former students, current students, when we were investigating potential revisions of our liberal arts core. We got a lot of data indicating that students thought, “Yeah, it’s great to take this sort of smorgasbord of courses, but I’m not quite getting the connection among them and how it relates to my career,” so we needed to do a better job there. Also, increasingly, over time, we were hearing from some of the business leaders, nonprofit leaders within the community, who would come to our campus to meet with us and talk with students and connect them to the community in different ways to provide internships, et cetera. We were hearing also the value of instilling in them skills that maybe weren’t necessarily intentionally addressed in their liberal arts core. And so that’s what ultimately led to all of this. There’s much more to that story, but when I did work at High Point University, even before we considered revisions of the liberal arts core, our marketing and communications team had noticed how employers, community members, prospective students, parents of prospective students, really responded to this idea of students learning life skills within their coursework. So life skills was the term that we used at High Point University for skills that prepare students for their profession and for life, regardless of what that profession is. So they’re skills that sort of transcend disciplinary boundaries and have importance in so many areas of life. That’s a very informal definition, but some refer to those types of skills in different ways. So, some would call them workforce readiness skills. Some who are very invested in the NACE competencies, they see a lot of parallels with the NACE competencies. Some call them human skills. So there are some of these skills that employers are seeking from our students that fall within the realm of, I would argue, the affective domain of learning. They’re sort of the people skills, the soft skills in terms of, how do you be a good team player? How can we prepare students to be more coachable, so that when they get into the work environment, they’re able to respond to feedback and change course or course correct, so that they’re more impactful in the work that they do? So we were having success in terms of the resonance of that messaging before it was incorporated into the core, and it kind of became what High Point University is known for. It is what High Point University is known for. They are the Life Skills University. So when it came time, as institutions do, we go back and revisit our core. Is it where we needed to be? Is it having the outcomes that we are really seeking? Is it meeting the needs of today’s students when they enter their professions? We saw the opportunity to connect to the life skills messaging, also to the liberal arts core, and so all of that work is what really got me even more invested [LAUGHTER] in the enduring value of a liberal arts education, and also some ways in which we could consider fresh approaches to it, in order to best prepare our students for lives as competent professionals and engaged citizens and all the things that we wish for them. And so kind of a long-winded answer to say, I spent a really long time thinking about what might be included in this book. Now I didn’t actually get to the purpose of the book in this conversation, and it is the following, when we had been working really hard to infuse our liberal arts core with these competencies, skills, life skills, human skills, whatever, that employers are seeking, what we found was that a lot of them fell within to a realm of teaching or pedagogy that a lot of us are not trained for within higher ed. So I’ll tick off some of the top life skills that we see cited in employer surveys. And by the way, I should mention I am now Provost at Texas Women’s University, so I’m at a different institution, and I’m meeting a lot with employers in the region to hear from them what it is that we need to be focusing on in terms of workforce readiness, to best prepare our students to enter their professions. And a lot of those skills fall within, again, the affective domain of learning, like emotional intelligence and I mentioned coachability earlier. Teamwork falls into that realm as well. You know, being a good team player, there’s a lot there that you have to be good at to be an effective team player. You have to communicate well, there are facets of emotional intelligence, obviously, that are wrapped up into being a good team player. You have to be coachable. You have to be open to respond to feedback from your teammates or maybe from your supervisor in a way that helps move the team forward to reach its collective goal. Do we do some of that in traditional liberal arts courses? Yes, we do, but do we really know how to significantly move the needle on some of those affective skills? I would argue no. And actually, a lot of the literature out there indicates that we could be doing a lot better by intentionally teaching these skills. So this book arose from what I saw is a void in our knowledge about how to best teach these skills that employers are seeking. And by the way, it doesn’t only pertain to these lesser studied skills that fall within the affective domain of learning, it also applies to skills that we in higher ed, for centuries probably, have touted as being the outcome of a liberal arts education, that being critical thinking. So when I actually dove into the literature to determine what to include in my chapter on best practices for teaching and measuring students’ development of critical thinking, I was actually kind of stunned. I mean, I knew a little bit of this before, but when I really dug in, I was kind of stunned on how we approach critical thinking in higher ed. Not everyone, I don’t mean to generalize, but often [LAUGHTER] we just think that our students pick up critical thinking as they’re writing or speaking or engaging in debate in the classroom or Socratic dialog, but actually, what we now know based on the teaching and learning literature is that the way to really move the needle on critical thinking is to be intentional in talking about it with students. Not only do you provide them with opportunities to engage in critical thinking… that does have an impact… but you can totally maximize the impact that you have if you preface all of that with a unit on talking about what is critical thinking? What does it look like? How do we take one aspect of critical thinking and apply it within different contexts? When you include a unit like that within your course and then dive into all the wonderful things in a liberal arts course that we do, challenging readings, writing papers, communicating, debating, etc, you have a much greater impact on students’ development of critical thinking than if you just assumed they were picking it up by default based on their engagement in all of those activities. Anyway, the book dives into all of that. It dives into the skills that we as academics aren’t typically trained to teach that fall within the affective domain of learning, like coachability, teamwork, etc, but it also addresses some that fall within the cognitive domain that we could probably maximize our impact if we were just a little bit more intentional about how we teach them. Critical thinking would be one of them.

John: We’ve been hearing a lot about many of the things that you found at High Point. In a past podcast interview with Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop, we talked about their book, The Disengaged Teen, and one of the things they talked about was how students in general have felt more disconnected from what they’re learning, that they don’t see the relevance of it to their lives. And that sounds very similar to the findings that you found at High Point. So this is a pretty significant shift, though, I imagine, for many faculty, how did faculty react to this shift? Was there a uniform consensus that developed very quickly, or was there a bit of resistance from people who preferred an emphasis just on the traditional liberal arts approach?

Angela: Oh, John, there was a lot of healthy debate, [LAUGHTER] but it was really, really healthy. It was so interesting to hear where everyone fell with respect to their beliefs in what a liberal arts education is all about. But meanwhile, there was this desire… we had, this branding going on of our institution at High Point University, we’re touting ourselves as a life skills university and addressing some of those skills in coursework outside of the actual core. That was really resonating with prospective students and parents and existing students, and actually on top of that, we were hearing from the employers that hired our students about how impactful those experiences were. So while there were those who are more wedded to the idea that the tradition of the liberal arts is just to instill, not just, but it is to instill lifelong learning, curiosity, the ability to view the world from different perspectives, there were definitely those who were actually very reluctant to tie it to anything related to professional outcomes. It’s not uncommon to High Point’s campus. That’s widespread. So there was that. But then there were also those who thought, “Well, why can’t we do both?” Like, “why can’t we accomplish the goals that we have for a traditional liberal arts education, while at the same time maybe structuring our classroom activities that also allow us to address some of these skills and competencies that we know are going to really help them be successful and that haven’t maybe traditionally been addressed in a liberal arts education? How can we also incorporate that? So couldn’t we do both?” And in the end, we had a lot of working groups, faculty forums, surveys, many opportunities for feedback. In the end, we actually had a faculty vote on adopting these life skills based learning outcomes. And by the way, I should mention that we had these life skills outcomes related to many that I’ve already addressed, but we maintained the traditional structure of their coursework, so they still took a course in natural sciences and quantitative reasoning and all that. But it was within those traditional liberal arts courses that we mapped these life skills based learning outcomes. So all that was said and done. But in the end, the vote was not like an on-the-fence vote. The overall faculty vote was very much in favor of adopting the life skills outcomes. So in the end, I think, generally speaking, people were really happy with it.

Rebecca: So you’ve talked a little bit about the process that was used to gain some consensus across the faculty. Can you provide some examples of what this kind of integrated learning outcome looks like that combines this traditional liberal arts approach with these life skills.

Angela: Yes, I’d be very happy to. So, when we sat down to map the life skills based learning outcomes to specific courses within the curriculum, some made a lot of sense in terms of where the best fit might be, just based on the nature of the work that happens within that discipline. So let’s use teamwork as an example. Right off the top of our heads, we thought about the courses in which students often work in teams, where there might be conflict or stress, and of course, what immediately popped to mind was natural sciences. We had a lab-based natural sciences course requirement within our liberal arts core, which I loved… what a great experience for students… but oftentimes in those courses, and especially in the way in which those courses were designed, where some of them were very much inquiry based, which is challenging for students. What a great place to teach teamwork, right? …when students are working in groups of two, three, four, to come up with a novel hypothesis to test, design an experiment, analyze data, do all the things, divvy up the responsibilities of carrying out the experiment. So what if, within that context, we are really intentional about how we structure teamwork? And talk with students about the challenges that teams experience and what makes for a functional versus a dysfunctional team, talk with them about the importance of feedback from their team members, and then taking that feedback, first of all, determining what feedback is meaningful, also, because not all feedback is meaningful, so an important part of it is figuring out, okay, what’s the most potentially impactful feedback that I’ve gotten, and then how do I course correct to make that happen? That was a natural fit to teach teamwork within the natural sciences. There are other ways… we had an ethical reasoning life skills outcome that’s, of course, very easily mapped to a philosophy or a religion course. And so that ethical reasoning outcome was mapped to those courses. I’m trying to think of some others, communication is obvious. Those [LAUGHTER] were all handled in comp courses and also a first-year seminar. So those are a few examples of how we took those life skills outcomes and embedded them in traditional courses in a way that wouldn’t take away content from those courses or the intention of those courses as a critical part of a liberal arts experience. It was just more intentionally structuring some of the activities that happened within that course in a way that made it explicit to students: Here’s one of the skills you’re gaining from this, and here’s why it’s going to be important in the workplace. Now, here’s how we can really nail this, and then laying out all the aspects of teamwork that would be important for them to know and to engage in in that course.

John: And would seem that the TILT approach that Mary-Ann Winkelmes has suggested might make this even more effective by making it explicit to students, because even though many classes were already doing those things, that information wasn’t always obvious to the students in the classes, and just making that connection explicit, I think, would be helpful.

Angela: Absolutely, and I’m going to go back to my critical thinking model, because that literature was so telling, and I ended up referencing one of the meta analyzes about critical thinking that demonstrated that in subsequent chapters, like, let’s be intentional about doing this stuff and not assume anymore that, “Well, I assigned a group project so they’re learning how to be a member of a team.” We all know that ain’t always how it works. In critical thinking, in terms of the meta analyses that have been done about different scholarship of teaching and learning studies on critical thinking, there are two different viewpoints of how to teach critical thinking: there’s the generalist view, and then the specifist view, the general views fits more within the realm of cognitive psych. The cognitive psychologists, their goal is just to talk about what it is, be very specific about what it is, give examples, practice learning it, and then transferring it into different contexts. Whereas the specifist views, which often fall within the realm of the philosophers, for example, they believe it is dependent on a deep dive into the content and context of the course in order to become a critical thinker, it’s not necessarily about intentionally teaching it. Well, we know from meta analyses of studies on critical thinking how to teach it, and how students learn in response to those different methods, we need a mix of both the generalist and the specifists views in order to move the needle the most with respect to critical thinking.

Rebecca: You talked a little bit about some of the marketing strategies upfront that maybe led to some of these conversations, or at least contributed to some of these conversations. Can you talk a bit more about how this integrated approach affected student recruitment at High Point?

Angela: When I served as Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs at High Point University, I, along with our Provost at the time, we were very engaged with recruiting events, open houses. We would do a presentation to all prospective students who might be visiting on a weekend for open house. We would do a presentation about our university mission and what life skills was all about, etc. And also talk about a liberal arts education and what that meant. By far, the predominance of questions that we would get from prospective students and their parents was, “How is this liberal arts degree going to prepare me for life beyond the classroom? …and the life skills theme really resonated with them. This is just based on my experience. And I have to say, when a lot of the institution really did experience continued success and continues to grow. And I would argue, liberal arts institutions aren’t really doing that right now. Some of them are not. Some of them are struggling with enrollment, but High Point continued to experience enrollment growth, and also continued to, during that time period, experience enhanced retention of first-year students, in particular. Like all other institutions, we were really focused on that first- to second-year transition because it’s so critical. Now, did life skills play a role in retention? So many other retention efforts happen on a campus. It’s hard to attribute it to just that, but what I can tell you is that it really helped provide shared purpose to what we were doing on our campus, kind of like a QEP. You know how accrediting bodies require campuses to engage in a quality enhancement project of some sort that everyone can get behind related to student learning? I would say it almost felt like that. We had had a prior successful QEP on our campus that focused on instilling in students a growth mindset approach to their college work, and really saw people from many different areas of university life really buying into that QEP. That’s how it worked out with the life skills initiative as well, incorporating it into the liberal arts core. It really helped create this shared purpose on our campus in terms of how everyone was contributing to those learning outcomes.

John: We should also reference our past podcast with you, which was a while ago, about how you had integrated growth mindset messaging into biology classes with some really strong results.

Angela: Yes, so when growth mindset was the QEP, Quality Enhancement proposal, at High Point University, we really worked hard to develop innovative teaching practices where students were exposed to growth mindset ideas, often in challenging courses. It was most helpful, and we actually did a whole study within our STEM courses. So there were a couple of different studies, publications that came out of that. But what we found was that when we just took time during the week, maybe 10 minutes at the start of the week and provided students with a particular growth mindset idea or strategy that they might employ and then emphasize that theme, maybe during other days of the week or at times when students experienced a really challenging exam or maybe a laboratory exercise, it improved academic outcomes. In the end, it was amazing. And yeah, so that was a wonderful QEP, and I would argue it had a really significant impact on student outcomes. You know how you have students… well, I’ll speak for myself. I’m getting old. [LAUGHTER] I’ve taught a lot of students in my day, and I love when I have students who I keep in touch with, typically through social media, but sometimes they text me or send me emails. There is one story in particular of a student. I love this story. It’s actually hard for me to talk about it without it getting emotional, because I love this student, and it is the most amazing story. She came to High Point University and really loved science, but she took her first-year introductory biology course, and man, that’s a tough one. It always is a tough one for students, and she didn’t do well, and she needed to retake it. First of all, she was just a gritty student to begin with. Some students fail, and they’ll walk away and say, “Oh, I guess I’m not a science person, and move on.” Well, she had heard some of the growth mindset messaging that I had been giving in different settings just to introduce students to the idea of what it means to have a growth mindset and how it might help them take on challenging coursework. So she’d come to my office and talk about it, and she retook the class, and actually did quite well in the class. She ended up completing a biology major. All right. Now, did she graduate with a 4.0? No, she did not. STEM courses were a challenge for her, but she had a growth mindset, and she took it on, and she continued to improve. She really wanted to get a PhD. She said that experience for her was so transformative. She loved science. She wanted to spread her passion for science. Applied to PhD programs. Didn’t get in… the GPA thing. So we talked about the importance, maybe of getting your foot in the door. Maybe get a lab tech position at an R1 institution, get to know the faculty, demonstrate your ability to engage in the scientific method. She did all that. She did, a lab tech position at one institution, went to another. Well, guess what? Oh, I love this outcome. She got into their PhD program, and I think she’s passed her qualifying exams. Occasionally, I’ll get a text with an update. “You’re not going to believe this. Look what I did,” and she’ll share where she is. But all of that started with a student who could have just walked away, and maybe would have just walked away had she not been studying growth mindset strategies and how that might impact her ability to reach this professional goal that she had set with herself. So I just think it’s so powerful, and I want to also share that growth mindset strategies are really, I would argue, a facet of a broader topic, which is emotional intelligence. So if you break down emotional intelligence into the four facets, as described by Mayer and Salovey, which I cite in my book, I structure all of the emotional intelligence teaching activities around those four facets of emotional intelligence that they have defined, that are broadly accepted within the academic community. They include emotional awareness, emotional understanding, understanding why someone might be exhibiting this particular emotion in a certain context, emotional management, that one’s obvious. But then another facet of emotional intelligence is emotional facilitation. When you have a day, we all have those days, right? [LAUGHTER]…where you’re like, “oh, I don’t want to do this,” or “this is going to be really hard,” how do you muster up the mindset and the emotions that are going to help you be successful in that day? Well, growth mindset is that right? Like, if you encounter a challenging math assignment, rather than sitting back and saying, “I’m just so not good at this, I hate this. Blah, blah, blah,” if you say, “Okay, this is going to help me grow, it’s going to be hard work. But I have to get through it,” it just totally changes one’s perspective. So anyway, we are now, at Texas Women’s University, we’re doing a study right now that broadens this approach, not just including growth mindset strategies, but also addressing these other four facets of emotional intelligence, as defined by Mayer and Salovey. And so we’re taking the same approach, little 10 minute lessons for students, and we’re doing them in STEM courses. Isn’t that great? Because STEM courses ,often, big emotions arise in STEM courses, right? They’re challenging, and there are many expectations beyond just like the didactic coursework, there’s all the lab stuff, and it is hard. So what a great ground like, what a great opportunity for us to test out some of these lessons where students are maybe struggling with some emotions in the context of the semester. So I don’t have any data to share with you [LAUGHTER] on that about its impact, because we’re still in the pilot phase of that study. But, anyway, growth mindset strategies, that was a wonderful project at High Point University, huge impact on student outcomes and just the whole mindset of the campus. And I know they have broadened their QEP now to include emotional intelligence, so that is their focus. And yeah, so stay tuned for more good data about that.

John: It sounds like that’s a very useful life skill to be including as part of that emotional intelligence component.

Angela: Absolutely

Rebecca: Sounds like a future conversation is brewing. [LAUGHTER]

Angela: I would love to, because that would mean there was a great finding to share. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: So, in your examples about emotional intelligence, as well as these bigger efforts around life skills, there’s a lot of culture shift that has to happen. We’ve talked a little bit about all the consensus building that takes a lot of conversation. But one other aspect of that is also the connections and interactions with the communities and employers of graduates from the institution, so that surrounding community. Can you talk a little bit about the approach to culture shifts between the institution and other in the surrounding community?

Angela: Yeah, that’s a great question. That is something in higher ed that some disciplines or programs are very accustomed to doing, bringing leaders from their profession into the classroom to inform about different things, and then others don’t so much. And what we found at High Point University… let me tell you how this started and then how it grew. High Point University has a series known as the Access to Innovators series. The President has been very wonderful about connecting with well-known business leaders, thought leaders, bringing them to campus so that they can mentor students, and so that all began as part of this Access to Innovators series. But what was interesting is that the more they came to speak and meet with students, they talked a lot about life skills, and it sort of brought it all together in terms of the importance of what they were learning on our campus, and then how that connected with professional life. So I love that example about the importance of intentional connection with the professional community. Things are shifting so rapidly in terms of where we are as a society, what things look like in the workplace. With AI evolving in the way that it is, there are certain professions now that have just changed so profoundly, and now, talking with employers from those professions where AI has had a profound impact, often a theme I hear is they are focusing on those human skills, soft skills, the life skills that are all about people, because AI can do so many things, [LAUGHTER] but one thing that it can’t do is lead a team, inspire a team. There’s a level of human-to-human communication that has to happen. There’s got to be emotional intelligence. The way that we need to stay on top of all of that is through connecting with our students’ future employers. One example from Texas Women’s University is the extent to which we have a lot of graduate programs in the health professions which we have a national reputation for excellence in this these areas, in nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy. Nursing, in particular, what our Dean of Nursing is finding in meeting with clinicians, heads of hospitals, etc. is that AI is a thing in the workplace, and here are the ways in which we need your students to be prepared to be AI literate when they enter a clinical setting. And by the way, all of that changes all the time because of how technology is improving. Well, we wouldn’t know all that if we weren’t having these frequent interactions with the future employers of our students. They’re also currently providing clinical experiences for our students, so we’ve had those relationships also in the context of their educational process. But you get my point, that those connections are critical, and when you bring that into the classroom as well…. let’s say you have a business leader come to campus and meet with one of your classes about whatever life skill you choose, they can bring like, real-life tangible examples to tell you how this played out when I had an employee who wouldn’t respond to my feedback. Here’s how it impacted their work, and here’s how it impacted their career progression. And when you have like those tangible, real life in the moment examples that employers are providing to our students, there’s a level of engagement…. I don’t have any metric for measuring this, I’m just telling you what I see happen within the classroom. There’s maximal engagement. They love hearing those stories. So if we can do more to sort of reach beyond the ivory tower, and again, this is variable, many people are doing this already, but if we can sort of break down those barriers of communication between the academy and our students’ future professions, it’s better for everyone.

Rebecca: In addition to this culture shift involved with reaching out to the community and the potential employers of students or the employers that have traditionally employed people from your institution, you also mentioned that there’s a need for a bit of a culture shift in instructional approaches that are being used. Could you talk a little bit about how the shift has affected the way in which people are teaching?

Angela: Good question. That’s a good plug for my book, John, [LAUGHTER] because people often are finding that if they have a life skill mapped to their course, gosh, I don’t know how to teach emotional intelligence, so we’re having to retool some of the things that we do in order to learn this new facet of our teaching responsibilities within the classroom, and to do it in a way that we’re evidence based in how we go about it, like we’re learning from others experiences and maybe building on that and innovating on that. So, this is requiring that campuses provide more than just saying, “hey, teach this life skill in your course,” or “teach this workforce readiness in your course,” it means we have to provide professional development opportunities for our faculty, and sometimes that means also understanding that it might be a course retooling. They might need some time or resources to make that happen. It depends on how significant of a revision it is, but they need to feel supported in that effort, and not that it’s just like one more thing added to their plate. So there’s a lot of thought that has to happen on the part of academic leaders to make this possible in a way that gets people excited and passionate about a particular life skill and how that might play out for their students in a really positive way… also feeling supported in that endeavor, so they’re not just left with here’s all this extra work to do this, not really knowing how do I connect with people who know best how to teach this? We need to be bringing those experts to our campuses to meet with our faculty and coach them on this and also to provide space in people’s schedules to do the course retooling that might be necessary to make this happen.

Rebecca: You talked earlier a bit about how the life skill of teamwork might be incorporated into the life sciences. Can you provide another example of a different life skill and how that was built into the liberal arts curriculum?

Angela: So one outcome that High Point University had incorporated into its life skills learning outcomes for its liberal arts curriculum was ethical reasoning. So, you’ll look at employer surveys, often you’ll see one of the competencies they’re looking for, or one of the traits they’re looking for is someone that has the ability to reason ethically through a situation and determine its potential impact on certain individuals, the company as a whole, customers, etc. There are different views about how ethical reasoning should be taught within a liberal arts core. So some are very much wedded to the idea that it should be taught by philosophers who specifically had training in ethics and so forth, or perhaps in religion courses. And by the way, that’s what High Point University elected to do. So those ethical reasoning learning outcomes were mapped specifically to religion and philosophy courses that were a part of the liberal arts core. Now, other institutions take a different approach to embedding ethical reasoning into their courses, and I’m going to talk about a model that I cited in my book at James Madison University. You may have heard about their model of ethical reasoning that’s framed around eight key questions that you can ask yourself when you’re in a situation that gets you to consider all of the ethics-related facets of that situation. It’s a really great model. They’ve done some SoTL work to indicate that it has an impact on students’ ability to reason ethically through situations. So it is a very impressive method. What’s interesting about the eight key questions model, the 8KQ model, and by the way, it was philosophers who played a lead role in developing that model. They developed a model that could be implemented in any class, regardless of the disciplinary expertise of the professor. So I’m just throwing that out as another example where some institutions are embracing life skills that perhaps traditionally in the past have been very much isolated within a certain discipline, and moving it into a framework where it can be incorporated in other courses as well. Now James Madison, to my understanding, did not embed it into their core curriculum. It is a method that is simply being employed in courses within many disciplines. That was their QEP, by the way, ethical reasoning was their QEP a while ago, and that’s how the 8KQ framework was developed. So that’s another example of, specifically at James Madison University, how a life skills outcome, ethical reasoning, might be embedded into any course. You can imagine how useful that would be in courses like engineering or nursing. It would be useful in any discipline, but I’m just saying there are often courses, programs, disciplines, that are required to address ethical reasoning learning outcomes, even if it’s not a part of their core, they’re required by their accrediting body to have that embedded in their coursework somehow, and so that provides a really useful framework for folks in a variety of disciplines to incorporate ethical reasoning mastery into what they do in the classroom.

John: The approach you’re discussing in this book would probably work best if it was done across the board in an institution, some of us may be working in systems where the Gen Ed requirements are kind of dictated from above. I remember we spent several years coming up with our campus gen ed program, and then a year or so later, the SUNY system created a whole new overlay to that, which led to a lot of modifications. My point is that while the approach you’re suggesting would probably work best if it’s instituted across the board in an institution-wide manner, Gen Ed requirements don’t always change very easily, and while your book is a great resource for institutions that are going through a complete revision of their programs, might it also be a useful resource for individual faculty, departments, or programs that would like to integrate life skills more effectively in their individual courses and programs.

Angela: Yeah, that’s a really good point. John and I am a big fan of ensuring that every student gets exposure to these really impactful life skills outcomes by the time they graduate, which would mean, well, we’ve got to catch them in the courses that they all have to take, which is the core curriculum, the liberal arts core. But you are so right, if you are in a state system where your learning outcomes are dictated by… I’ll speak in Texas, we have a Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board which sets out the competencies for our core curriculum, the learning outcomes for our core curriculum. And by the way, they emphasize a lot of workforce readiness skills, where there’s a lot of crossover with life skills. So I was excited to see that when I moved to Texas and took on this position, like teamwork, for example, or critical thinking, communication. But you know, even if you are in a different context, and that’s just not possible, aybe there’s not consensus among the faculty about wanting to incorporate these competencies into the core curriculum. This book, I think, is still incredibly useful, because it may be the case that you’re teaching a lot of STEM courses and you notice that your students may be struggling, maybe with imposter syndrome, like all the things that students often struggle with when they get into a STEM course in particular, but other challenging courses as well, you might want to think about doing some emotional intelligence lessons, because it can make students aware of those emotions and understanding where those emotions are coming from, and how they might manage them, and how they might facilitate emotions that would help them get beyond those feelings, to build up their self efficacy, their self confidence in their ability to be a scientist, in their ability to do science. So, even if you’re not at an institution where it’s possible to develop a liberal arts core that addresses these outcomes, yeah, this is useful to anyone, and not just 4-year institutions, 2-year institutions, I would argue, even high school teachers might find benefit from reading about some of the best practices that are outlined in these chapters for a particular life skill that they would really love to teach their students.

John: And what we haven’t emphasized is that you have a chapter on each of these life skills and effective ways of integrating that.

Angela: Yeah, and there are more life skills too, so maybe there will be a part two book. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: So many life skills. [LAUGHTER]

Angela: So funny. When I look at my original outline for the book and how many I was going to address, I think I had like 12 chapters in mind, and you’ll notice it’s significantly shorter than that, because by the time you dig into a particular topic and lay out the theory and talk about the teaching and the assessment, it takes up a lot of words.

Rebecca: So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next? Maybe you’ve already teased a couple things.

Angela: Well, yeah, we’ll see… already in talking with folks about the topics covered in this book, those who have reviewed it and maybe provided an endorsement of the book, that there are other life skills, workforce readiness skills, NACE competencies, whatever you want to call them, that haven’t been addressed in the book. So I think there’s a lot of opportunity for a part two. So that’s something that I’ve been thinking about, as time permits.

John: Thank you for joining us. It’s great to talk to you again, and this time, let’s not wait as long before our next conversation.

Angela: I would love that. Thank you so much, John and Rebecca, it was really fun to connect with you again and talk about stuff that we’re excited and passionate about. I love the work that we do in higher ed. So, yeah, it’s fun to sit back and celebrate some of the good work that’s happening.

Rebecca: Definitely. Thanks again for joining us.

Angela: 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.

John: Editing Assistance provided by Madison Lee.

[MUSIC]

412. Higher Ed Instructional Design

Instructional designers have played an increasingly important role in supporting instruction in all modalities. In this episode, Safary Wa-Mbaleka and Gianina-Estera Petre join us to discuss a new resource describing effective instructional design practices in a global context.

Show Notes

  • Wa-Mbaleka; Chen, Baiyun; Petre, Gianini-Estera; and deNoyelles, Aimee (2025). The Sage Handbook of Higher Education Instructional Design. Sage.
  • Journal of Educational Studies
  • Petre, Gianina (2022). Training Pre-Service Teachers for Classroom Management through Study Groups.
  • UDL Guidelines
  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers college record, 115(3), 1-47.
  • Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of Training: The Contribution of Coaching.
  • TILT Higher Ed
  • WCAG
  • Petre, G.E. (2025) ed.,. The Alphabet of Values. Stanborough Press.
  • Wa-Mbaleka, S., & Thomas, D. (2022). Qualitative Research in a Multilingual Setting: Principles and Strategies. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in the Asian Context. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Transcript

John: Instructional designers have played an increasingly important role in supporting instruction in all modalities. In this episode, we discuss a new resource describing effective instructional design practices in a global context.

[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 Safary Wa-Mbaleka and Gianina-Estera Petre. Safary is an associate faculty at University of Arizona Global Campus. He has authored and co-authored more than 60 scholarly journal articles and more than 30 books and book chapters. Gianina is an Associate Professor at Adventus University of Cernica, Romania. She is the Research Center Director and Editor-In-Chief of the Journal of Educational Studies. Safary and Gianina are two of the editors of The Sage Handbook of Higher Education Instructional Design, which was released in July 2025. Welcome, Gianina and welcome back, Safary.

Safary: Thank you. Glad to be back.

Gianina: Thank you.

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

Safary: I’m having water today. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: The foundation of tea. [LAUGHTER]

Safary: Yes. [LAUGHTER]

John: And Ginanina?

Gianina: Yes. Actually, I like drinking ginger tea. I think two hours ago I had one. I like tea, but also water.

John: Very nice. Ginger tea is one of my favorites, too.

Rebecca: It’s a good choice, for sure. I have Lady Grey this morning.

John: And I have spring cherry green tea.

Rebecca: So we invited you both here to discuss the Sage Handbook of Higher Education Instructional Design. Can you tell us about the origin story of this book?

Safary: Actually, I think, John and Rebecca, you’re part of the origin of this book, because when we had another podcast last year, you asked me the question, so what’s next? [LAUGHTER] And I said, I think we need to look into one of the dimensions and try to dig deeper into that. And as I was looking around, I quickly realized that instructional design is a big deal. And so that’s how it started. I talked to Gianina. I talked to two other colleagues who are co-editors, and we all agreed that, yeah, it was time to have a book on instructional design and specifically for higher education.

Gianina: For me, I just joined the team, a little bit late, compared with the three other colleagues. And what can I say? I collaborated in many projects with Safary, and from this collaboration, when he told me about this project, I said, “Wow, I really want to participate. I really want to be involved in this. I think it’s a need.” And you know how it is, the natural way of appearing, the project’s appearing. You are working on something, and suddenly another idea appears, and you are saying, “Oh, we need to do this.” So I was very happy to be involved in this project with Safary and the other colleagues.

John: And this is a rather large project. This volume has 50 chapters organized into seven sections. Could you give us a brief overview of the types of topics covered in each section, and maybe with a few topic examples?

Gianina: As you mentioned, 50 chapters organized into seven sections. I will give some titles. For example, section one is about general foundations of higher education instructional design. Here is the introduction of what instructional design is. what instructional designers do, understanding and addressing common instructional design challenges and so on. The second section is theoretical foundation of instructional design. Here we have ideas or topics about historical foundations, instructional design theories, instructional design models and other. Section three, it’s about practical foundations of higher education instructional design. And here we have topics about learner needs and analysis, keeping teaching in mind while designing classes, addressing issues of inclusion. I am just selecting some topics. Section four, it’s higher education instructional design at the course level. And here we have exactly the topics, how to design standards, the goal, the syllabus, how to design an online course, flipped class, hybrid class, more micro credential courses and other topics here. With section five, higher education instructional design and the curriculum. And here we discuss about quality assurance, partnership between subject matter experts and instructional designers, mobile learning, designing content for learners with disabilities and other topics. Section six, it’s about technology in higher education instructional design. Hot topic, no? Using technology [LAUGHTER] when designing instruction and when conducting instruction. Here in Section six, we have also about artificial intelligence, how to integrate artificial intelligence in teaching and learning, and the last one, research in higher education instructional design, with the focus on research trends in higher education instructional design, conducting research in higher education and instructional design, investigating learners experience and so on. So a lot of topics, interesting and very actual, I would say.

Safary: Yeah, and thank you so much, Gianina for this summary. You will see that it is true that we have a number of textbooks on instructional design, but as an instructional designer myself, I’ve been in instructional design for many years, there was always something missing. If it is the leaders who design the textbook, it tends to be mainly leadership. If it’s the IT people, it tends to be technical. If they’re just the instructional designers, it’s just the instructional design part. But as you can see on this one, we have a variety of all the different stakeholders, the people who are involved in instructional design, from leadership to technology to the curriculum, to many other things, evaluation, assessments, we tried to capture as many things as possible, so that you have one resource that captures most of what is needed in instructional design, especially in higher education.

John: And you brought in a lot of voices into this volume. How did you select the contributors for this project.

Safary: You know, I think that it started with the selection of the focal editors, because the selection of the co-editors was very strategic, making sure that we’re getting people who have a lot of connections in the field of instructional design. The other two who are not with us on this podcast are from University of Central Florida Baiyun and Amee, who were my colleagues before, actually I worked together in the same department, so they have a large network. And we said, “Okay, we need to look outside the United States, because we don’t want this to be just the United States.” And quickly I thought about Gianina, and she has a large network in Europe. And so with the four of us together, and each one having our own network, we’re able to quickly put together a group of contributors trying to make it as diverse as possible. So we have contributors from many different countries, from North America, Central America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Australia, I think New Zealand and Asia, of course, we covered almost the whole world.

Rebecca: One of the things that I really appreciate about this particular volume. in your past work, too, is this international perspective. And not just because you have a wide variety of authors representing a wide variety of perspectives, but that a lot of the chapters are co-authored by folks of different perspectives. Can you talk a little bit about those decisions?

Safary: Gianina, do you want to go first?

Gianina: Yes, you know, because we are connected, the editors are so connected and involved in so many projects, research projects, collaboration projects, it’s not very difficult to have a group to connect with of experts, of course, in this field, and also inviting those experts, they have also connections, and they invited other experts in the field. So we tried to motivate them to work by teams, because this different perspective brings a lot of good work, a proper view, a proper image on the topic. So because we are people of collaboration, and we love collaborating, it was not so difficult to work by groups. For example, I had a chapter with three other colleagues, one was for Valencia University, Spain, and the other two were from Montemorelos University, Mexico. So this diversity, I think it’s a very positive and strong point in the book, because different perspectives can bring rich approaches in the topic.

Safary: Yeah, and in my case, and I agree with Gianina actually, collaboration brings synergy that you didn’t get from just a one-sided thing. And this is from the different projects that I’ve had with Sage. This is my third one with the handbooks. I have come to realize that this is actually the strength that we bring into Sage. I have been privileged to work on three continents, and I see that there are many different perspectives, and there are experts everywhere in the world, and not just in one place, as much as I am pro America, because this is where I am, and this is where I study, and this where I’ve spent many of my career years, but there’s just a lot of knowledge out there. And I think this is the strength that we get from collaborating. When you have people from the Middle East contributing, people from Europe, from Africa, from Asia, from Asia Pacific, you’re getting multiple perspectives. Sometimes I read some of the manuscripts, some of the drafts people have submitted. I never thought about that, or we have never addressed that here in the West. And so from the conferences I’ve had with other people, other projects have worked together, connections like Rebecca, I think you were one of the contributors. I don’t know how we got connected, if it was from the podcast or something. And some of the people, my students now, who know other people, you find that the final product is very solid. It’s much richer because it represents the global perspective, because the field of instructional design is not only one sided, it’s everybody’s involved in it.

John: What is the target audience of this book? Is it designed primarily for instructional designers as a resource? Is it designed for faculty to see how instructional designers can assist them? Or is it designed for administrators to better understand the role that instructional designers play?

Gianina: The book is for all the mentioned and for the others also. So we have in the list of the target population, let’s say this or audience. We have instructional designer, but also university students, online education leaders, researchers, faculty, team leaders, support personnel. So it’s a variety of target audience here, and I think based on my experience during this process, from the beginning to the publication moment, I could connect with all these categories. I discuss with them. I presented the book also in Romania and with other researchers and administrators I collaborate with. So I could see that it’s a need, and they were waiting the book to be published so that they have this global perspective on instructional design in higher education.

Safary: And while we focus primarily on that, and we kept that in mind, we made sure that all the contributors kept this audience in mind. We understand that there’s a lot there that can be used in the industry, a lot of information. For example, we have instructional design models there, quality assurance in instructional design. These are things that can be used even K through 12. But we didn’t want to claim that we’re writing it for all those other places, because in case we missed something that is very much relevant to them, then we wouldn’t want to be accountable for that. But it can be expanded to anybody really who is interested in instructional design or learning instructional design, or applying instructional design or doing research in instructional design. They can definitely do that.

Rebecca: I can see it as a really helpful guide for new faculty who don’t have experience [LAUGHTER] designing their instruction, because it is so comprehensive and it allows you to kind of dip into spaces that you may be less familiar with. Maybe there’s areas that you are familiar with, but there’s other topics that maybe you want to explore more, like AI or other topics like different models or different ways to structure a course. So you each co-authored or authored chapters in this book. Can you tell us a little bit about your contributions to this volume?

Safary: I contributed to quite a number of chapters, obviously chapter one and the last chapter. I always contribute to that If I’m a co-editor, I always love that, because it’s like this where we’re going, and this what we have learned. I like that. So the first chapter and last chapter, that’s what it is. But the two chapters that I really contributed to substantively, one is on instructional design models. I like instructional design models. I don’t know why. The first book I used on instructional models, textbook when I was doing PhD in instructional design was, I think, Gustavson, 2002, that’s old now. And when I was going through those instructional design models, I was just amazed. It’s like, how did they come up with this? And so we have one chapter on instructional design models, just a synthesis to have things in one place. I know that books that are just books for instruction design models, but this is like a synopsis of 10 or more designs, something like that, the most practical ones that people can use. Anybody who is new to instruction design can easily follow and we tell them, here are the strengths of each design, here are the weaknesses, and you can use them in this and this area. So I co-authored that with a gentleman from Chicago. actually. I don’t even remember how I got to know him. We have never met, but we have collaborated like we have known each other forever, but we just got to know each other on this project. And he’s an instructional designer in one of the universities there, and so he was equally excited about instruction design, and he teaches instruction design. The other chapter that I really, really loved, and I contributed alone because I just wanted to put in my own concepts of quality assurance in instructional design. I basically took the same things that people have, but presented them in a different perspective and integrated research in that chapter as well, which tends to be left out when you’re talking about quality assurance. People talk more about the strategies to use, but not so much emphasizing the research aspect of that. And so I was able to create an acronym for that to present the different phases that have to happen. And for each phase, I have questions that people have to ask to assess that specific dimension of instructional design, and it’s much more comprehensive, not just at the course level, but in the whole instructional design process. I contributed to others, but at a minimal level, but those two are the ones that I really got carried away with, because it’s just my passion. I love instructional design, step by step and the instructional design models, and also to make sure that the quality is taken care of.

John: So while we have quite a few instructional designers in our audience, we believe, a lot of people in the audience are faculty who may not be familiar with instructional design models. Could you just talk a little bit about some of your favorite instructional design models, the ones that you use, just so that people who may not be as familiar get a feel for them.

Safary: Well, all of us, we know this elusive ADDIE model. You know that is kind of the leader, even if, when you want to go around it, you’ll find that you’ll always find some dimensions of that in whatever other people come up with. We have rapid instruction design model that is also out there. We have spiral designs, those who just feel like you go in circular ways. And looking at the different models, I have come to realize that some look at it as strategies, while others look at instruction design models are more into processes and the ones that I like the least, they look at it primarily as a philosophical or theoretical thing, which I prefer not to go from that perspective. If we talk about instruction design models, I want things step by step, things that I can easily find in what other people did.

Rebecca: So what I’m hearing you say is a lot of these models are really actionable. So if someone is getting started in designing their own course, they can follow a process. And there’s these different processes folks can follow.

Safary: Yes.

Rebecca: …as a way to develop their course.

Safary: Definitely, and for me, if it is not that user friendly, that people can follow step by step, then there’s an issue with that instruction design model, because we are going to introduce these to people who are new to the field, we don’t want them struggling: “Okay, how do I implement this?” They should be able to read and understand most of what is being said and be able to apply that.

John: The other chapter you mentioned focused on quality assurance. You mentioned that you’ve presented some research there, but is there any particular quality assurance technique that you use, or that you encourage people to use?

Safary: I wouldn’t say that I have one specific technique. What I have done in that chapter, I created the different phases of instructional design, somewhere between five to seven phases, and each phase, I have the specific elements that have to be taken care of. So I created a table that shows the different phases and each phase exactly what needs to be taken care of. It’s a long list. It’s a long list, but that makes it very practical, so that anybody who is still new to instruction design can follow, and once they have addressed all those steps, they can move to the next phase and easily address what is happening.

Rebecca: And how about your chapters. Gianina?

Gianina: Of course, I contributed to the first chapter and the last one with Safary, and I met the other colleagues, but I wrote, as mentioned, one chapter with three other colleagues, one from Valencia University and the other two from Mexico, on hybrid class, how to design a hybrid class. And because all four, we are excited about blending face to face and the online instruction, we focus on different aspects on how to design, and we provided specific examples how to use different tools, how to integrate them in instruction. And I wrote a chapter by myself, so it was about addressing issues of inclusion in instructional design. And in this chapter, I would say that it was blending my model, the model I developed during my PhD thesis, the model just saying a few words in between. So I am coming from a former communist country, so in my country, in Romania, only in the last years, we are speaking about cooperative learning and how to train future teachers to use cooperative learning. So during my PhD studies, I developed a model named CoLearnItt, cooperative learning for initial teacher training. And in this chapter, I’m presenting my model blended with the UDL principles. So it seems that all the components of the model are very well connected with the UDL. So I am presenting with specific examples from my classes, because in the last years, I conducted action research in my inclusive education class. So during the years, I came up with different action plans and models. So I improved them year after year. And in this chapter, I’m presenting the last version of my model. So I’m very excited because it’s very practical and each professor can implement in his teaching when designing the class, these elements from the CoLearnItt model and UDL principles. And this is very exciting for me.

John: Let’s go back to the first chapter you referred to on hybrid learning. This is an area where which I think is probably underused given the meta-analyses that suggest that it’s often more effective than either face-to-face or purely asynchronous or online learning. What are some things though, that faculty who first engage in hybrid learning might do wrong? What are some common errors that perhaps you’d like to encourage people not to do when designing a hybrid course.

Gianina: From the readings and the research I conducted, I could identify that is not a balanced way between the face-to-face and synchronous or asynchronous part. So in my opinion, it should be a training before designing such a class, because it’s not easy. So it’s about how to use technology, and not all of the teachers are used to the new technology. It’s about how to create the content, how to organize the content, how much of the content should be explored before the class, in a flip class format, and how much in the class, in the physical class, how to organize or to design the assessment, because it’s important to have part in online, synchronous or asynchronous, and also in face to face. So all these aspects should be in a balanced way, introduced in a hybrid class. And I think the teacher should be trained in doing this, because it’s not an easy task, let’s be honest, and also the technology. How do you use what kind of platforms so that they should be user friendly and easy to access, easy to understand and so on, how to explain your students how to use the platform, how to respond to the assessment tasks. So all this should be in a balanced and very organized way. And yes, the teacher should be trained before organizing such a class.

Safary: And if I may add to that, the other challenge that personally, I have seen with people who are not trained. Training is very, very important. The challenge has been people over loading their students, because here, let’s say this started as a face-to-face class. They have 100% of face to face, and then they have another 50% online, and so students are overwhelmed with a lot of work.

John: That course and a half phenomenon that people often talk about with hybrid courses when people are first designing them.

Rebecca: It’s a problem for both for the students and for the faculty, right?

Safary: Yeah, yeah, true. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about your inclusive model and share some insights that folks might include in their classrooms to make their classrooms and their courses more inclusive?

Gianina: In the model I developed each component… let me list the components…. so it’s about using the training model of Showers, because only following a specific steps the students you are preparing to be teachers can learn how to apply, from the training to the class, everything. It’s about, how to design the classroom management so that it’s inclusive, how to organize your interactive lecturing so that address each type of the students you have in the class, how to evaluate the students, how to design, how to offer or to give expert feedback, so that mastery learning takes place in that class. Also how to use dimensions of learning to build step by step this inclusive class, because we have such a diversity in our classes today, and we need to be so creative and to bring so much diversity in our teaching, so that each one of them can be touched by our teaching, to be motivated by our teaching. So all these components are related to the three directions in UDL, how to diversify the teaching methods, so that the students can learn how to diversify your evaluation, your assessment, so that each one of them can respond in his or her own way due to the diversity that I mentioned, and how to engage them in the classroom. So in these three directions, I think my model is very well connected with the UDL principles. And I showed in the chapter how each component or how each part of the component, it’s very developed. So I cannot just say in a few words the entire model, but I can show with specific examples from the classroom and from my research, how the CoLearnItt model is connected with UDL principles. It’s really nice. You know, for me, it’s very exciting to achieve this point with my model, because I don’t know, in future, maybe something new will appear. Because I’m continuing with the research, I am conducting action research in each class, so after each class, something new comes up.

Rebecca: Probably one of the best parts about working on a project like this is getting to learn a whole swath of new things. [LAUGHTER]

John: And that’s also one of the benefits and challenges of running a podcast. We get so many good ideas from our guests that we try to implement, perhaps sometimes too many of them, and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. We also have another co-author of one of the chapters… Rebecca, could you talk a little bit about your contribution to the book?

Rebecca: Sure, I had the honor of working on a chapter about designing for students with disabilities, which is something that is certainly dear to my heart. As listeners of our podcast know, and I think I got to co-author with a colleague that, Gianina, I think you maybe had recommended that I write with Chip and so it was really wonderful to work with a colleague from Romania, who I had not met before. And one of the things that we explored in this chapter is some of the digital accessibility standards, the web content accessibility guidelines in combination with UDL or Universal Design for Learning and TILT, Transparency in Learning and Teaching, and how there are some really interesting synergies and overlaps between these three models and strategies, but also where they differ, and how those differences and implementing some of those other pieces actually really help support a variety of different kinds of students with a variety of different kinds of needs and different kinds of technology that they might be using to access information. So it was really fun to work on this particular chapter, to explore the different kinds of things that we often recommend, but also like you Gianina, to like put them lined up next to each other and see where some of those overlaps are, and to really make those explicit, so that it also made the differences very explicit.

John: And how did you connect TILT with digital accessibility?

Rebecca: Well, you know, one of the most important things is not necessarily the technical standard around digital but all of our digital content needs to be transparent in the way we’re organizing it. And there is a WCAG, or a web content accessibility guideline that really points the idea of like clear language and TILT is all about clarity and transparency. So it was a way to kind of bring that to life, I think, in a much more obvious way, and really provide steps that someone could take to implement that into their coursework. So there was a lot of examples that are like that, where there’s one here that seems like something I need to do, but maybe it’s in a language that doesn’t make a lot of sense to a teacher, but then you bring in another model that talks about that same kind of concept or content in a different way, that can be really helpful.

John: Very good.

Rebecca: So one of the things that I know is covered in this really comprehensive volume is assessment of instructional design, but we haven’t really talked about that in as much detail. Can you share a little bit of insight of what is captured in this volume on that topic?

Safary: Assessment has always been a challenging topic, and from this volume, it became clear that it’s not just a matter of strategy, it’s not just a matter of technology. It has a whole lot of things related to the philosophy of education, cultural background of the education setting, the historical background, the political background. So these are things that we never really thought about. Because, like, as far as I’m concerned, when I look at assessment, immediately I put on my American lenses. I look at it from that perspective. But other people, it’s like, remember this place where I was in a specific country in Africa, where assessment is about policing and making sure that students struggle, students suffer. So students who get an A, it’s like it’s a fight between the students and the faculty. So when I found myself in that specific country, my first few months, I was struggling because it was an expectation on me that I should assess students from that perspective. But I said: “No, assessment for me is to help students learn and make their learning effective and efficient. And so if I see that there’s something that’s not working, how can I support the student better?” But no. So there was a tension between my philosophy of assessment, of learning and assessment, and what was being expected from me. And so you’ll find that when we are dealing with assessments and instructional design, you’ll find that the context where the assessment is going to take place has other elements that have to be taken into consideration. We cannot have universal principles that everybody will abide with. You will always find variations based on specific context with the specific countries’ specific culture and maybe languages as well.

John: I can imagine that being a challenge, given all the variety in the audience that you’re writing for, given the different histories of higher education and the role of higher education and the traditions of higher education. One other issue, though, related to assessment, that I think we all wonder about, especially in forms of online assessment is AI, and you do have some information on AI in the book. Do you have any recommendations for people who are teaching in terms of being able to adequately assess work when students might perhaps have access to a wide variety of AI platforms that can respond to many different types of assessments?

Gianina: Actually, I listened some presentation of some experts in AI, and I understood that we should not be afraid of AI, but we should learn how to use it properly in our classes. So regarding assessment, let’s say that in Romania, because of the background, as a former communist country, we are not so how to say attached, for example, to formative evaluation. So we are focused on summative evaluation. And sometimes this is a big issue, because our students are learning just for grades, not all of them, some of them, of course, based on what this expert was presenting, that we should not be afraid of AI, but learning how to use it, I was thinking, why not inviting some experts in AI in my university and training our teachers how to use AI, not only to evaluate, to assess, but also to teach, to present and to create content to help students to understand how to use it in an ethical manner. And yes, I connected with some experts from Portugal, and they will come probably in March, April next year, to train us on how to use AI. So I think it’s not anymore that moment to just to be scared about AI, but just addressing properly, because it’s the reality. So why not teach our students how to use it in an ethical manner? And I think many things can be created and time saved with the use of AI, but in a proper way, of course, and also assessment, I think the teachers very fast, can identify if the homework is done with AI or by the student, if you know your students, of course, if you have 200 or 300 students, it’s very difficult. In my university, because we don’t have so many students, it’s a small university, we can, in a moment, identify that this is not the voice of my students. These are not the words of my students. So it’s not difficult. But go back to my first idea, why not collaborating with AI in an ethical manner?

Rebecca: So one of the other topics that’s covered in such a comprehensive volume…. we can’t emphasize how comprehensive it actually is… is leadership. Can you talk a little bit about the role leadership plays in instructional design?

Safary: I was so glad that we were able to include at least one whole chapter on leadership in instructional design, for many different reasons. Number one, when those who are with online, but this volume covers both online and face to face, when people want to go deep into instructional design, they want to have instructional design team or instructional design department, usually [LAUGHTER] they will just try to identify somebody who is an IT, because in their mind, instructional design means somebody who’s good with the computers, which is not true. I mean, yes, you know some of the computers, but instructional design is not primarily computers. It’s really about thinking and doing things, planning instruction, and that’s basically what it is. And so because of this, we do not really have a lot of leaders who are trained as instructional design leaders. People just grow into instructional leadership, but not really train. And so you find that if somebody didn’t go through like a leadership training, or they didn’t study instructional design, because they may be instructional design team leader without actually having done extensive training on instruction design, you’ll find that there’s always a disconnect between the instructional design team and the leader, that’s one side, somebody who can provide the vision, the mission and design the whole department, provide the leadership for the whole department and connect that to the university. It has to be somebody who understands very well instructional design but also knows how to deal with higher administration, because the instructional design leader is not necessarily the president of the college or the university. And so how do they do this? That chapter covers that extensively and is written by people who have extensive knowledge and expertise in the area. The other aspect of this, and I’m going to speak now from the online education perspective. I’ve been in universities where online education was being integrated at the beginning. I’ve been twice director of online education to start the department of online education. And the common challenge has always been, “Oh, since you have a computer and you have internet connection, and we have online library, okay, you don’t need anything, you just do everything, and we’ll have online education.” The administrators do not understand that this is a whole different thing. We need a team, we need a budget. We need resources, and this is something that they have, if they want to go into online education, they will have to invest significant money into this. And so the chapter helps with that. If you want to start an instructional design team, what needs to be in place? How do you relate with the top administration to make sure you get the buy in and the support that is needed to lead your instructional design team? What are the challenges? How do you fund resources? How do you connect? How do you deal with things when you have limited resources, because that tends to be a challenge, especially when the department is new. What kind of personnel do you want to have on board when you have your instructional design team? How do you establish the standards, the policies? All these are things that have to be dealt with when you are a leader of instructional design.

John: And as the role of instructional designers has become much more developed and much more extensive in terms of how they’re used, that’s an important point, and it sounds like that’s an important chapter too for potential leaders to be looking at.

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

Gianina: Many things are next, are coming. One of the projects I finished, it’s The Alphabet of Values. It’s a book for teachers, for parents, and for kids. And next week, on Wednesday, is the launch of the book here in Romania. I’m very excited, because the book, it’s with the contribution. I’m the editor and the one who designed the pedagogical part with strategies, methods, for children, for parents, and for teachers. But 26 authors from around the world, with MA and PhD in education, business and public health, wrote the stories. So all the continents are covered. And the beauty of this book is that it’s inclusive, has different aspects. It’s also interconnected with other fields, with geography, history, languages, religion, and others, and it’s very practical. The illustrations are done by a specialist, by an expert or professional in this field, and I’m very happy that it was published, I think three or four weeks ago, and the next week is the launch of this and also another book I’m sending in two weeks to print. It’s qualitative research, a practical guide for early career researchers, also with the contribution of different experts, researchers around the world. And I really hope that it was more for Romania, because we still believe that qualitative research is not so important, but step by step, we can show that has its place, and it’s very relevant in many fields. So printing, publishing in English, of course, I will translate it into Romanian language. So I am very excited about this, and also about our next year international conference, Safary participated. He was two years ago, the keynote speaker, but next year, we have competing perspectives in the AI age. This is the theme, so it’s very interesting. And these are my future projects, only a few of them, because we are involved in many projects. But I’m happy because two of these are done.

Rebecca: I love that you are supporting learners and educators of a wide variety of ages [LAUGHTER] and education settings and moments in their career.

Gianina: When I come back from my PhD studies, I studied in the Philippines. By the way, Safary was one of the best teachers I had there, and we continued, as you can see, to collaborate since I came back. I wanted to help the education system here in Romania, because we are making small steps towards Western approaches, but I want to contribute to this development, and I’m very happy to do this.

Rebecca: How about you, Safary?

Safary: You know, writing is my addiction, and Gianina knows this, because ever since I met her, I don’t know if it was 2016, somewhere around there, when we first met, I’ve always written, and for the first time, last March, after I published my recent book on qualitative research, I said, I’m going to take a break until October this year. So I’m on break. I have not been writing. It has been hard. It’s been very hard because I have so many ideas that are popping up in the head. I said, “No, no, I’m taking a break until October.” So in October, of course, I have a few ideas that are already in mind. I’m thinking of going back to qualitative research, because the first handbook I published was on qualitative research in Asian context. Then there was these two for higher education. And so I want to go back to qualitative research and probably create a textbook for quality research designs, because I see that a number of people are struggling with that. This is not going to be a handbook. It will be just a textbook, probably 200 pages and that’s not not too long, just to guide people to distinguish between the different designs, so that they don’t confuse that. I tend to be a little bit of purist as far as qualitative research is concerned. So I want things to be done right. You know, the structural design mindset is still influencing my other things that I do. So that’s the plan I have in the near future.

Rebecca: So although taking a break from writing, the mind is not taking a break. [LAUGHTER]

Safary: It’s not, but at least I get time to relax and oh, well, not so much. Gianina and I have a conference next week at a qualitative research conference starting on Monday, so Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Again, it’s covering different countries, but it’s a lot less thinking than when you’re leading a handbook.

John: Well, thank you. It’s great to hear from you, and it’s great to hear about this project and your future plans.

Gianina: Thank you.

Safary: Thank you so much for inviting us. It’s been a great privilege to be back on the podcast.

Rebecca: Yeah, thanks for joining us.

[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. Editing assistance provided by Madison Lee.

[MUSIC]

410. A Summer to Learn

Imagine exploring alternative teaching methods in a classroom focused on learning and not grades. In this episode, Russell Marcus joins us to discuss how this occurs in a two-week philosophy summer program. He is the Christian A. Johnson Excellence in Teaching Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College. Russell specializes in the philosophy of mathematics and the pedagogy of philosophy. He is a Past-President of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers. Since 2018, Russell has been running a philosophy summer camp at Hamilton College designed to help faculty develop more effective teaching practices while also benefiting students.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Imagine exploring alternative teaching methods in a classroom focused on learning and not grades. In this episode, we discuss how this occurs in a two-week philosophy summer program.

[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 Russell Marcus. He is the Christian A. Johnson Excellence in Teaching Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College. Russell specializes in the philosophy of mathematics and the pedagogy of philosophy. He is a Past-President of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers. Since 2018, Russell has been running a philosophy summer camp at Hamilton College designed to help faculty develop more effective teaching practices while also benefiting students. Welcome Russell.

Russell: Thanks for having me.

John: We’re very happy to talk to you today. Our teas today are:… Russell, are you drinking any tea?

Russell: I have peppermint tea. I don’t do caffeine, so I’m all on herbal tea, and I have a box of peppermint tea in my office… constantly.

Rebecca: You can’t go wrong with mint. I have English afternoon today, relying back on an old favorite, John.

John: And I am trying to cut back on caffeine, but not today. [LAUGHTER] It’s a busy time getting ready for workshops next week, so I am drinking a black currant green tea from the Republic of Tea.

Rebecca: Nice.

Russell: Lovely.

Rebecca: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss the Hamilton College summer program in philosophy, which we read about in the July 21st, 2025, article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Can you tell us how you became interested in philosophy pedagogy?

Russell: Sure. So I started my career after college as a math teacher. I was a high school math teacher, and then I did that in New York City for a couple of years, and I worked also in a high school in Costa Rica. I taught there, and what I discovered in my first years of teaching was a real love of curriculum design. I taught something like 24 different classes in my five years between college and graduate school. After about four or five years, I started feeling both the pull of philosophy. I wanted to go back to graduate school, and I knew that I wanted to. I wasn’t quite ready for it when I came out of college. I also saw a kind of waning ability for me to be creative as a high school teacher. My first love in philosophy was mathematics, but I found the community in philosophy of mathematics to be kind of disappointing and frustrating as I started to develop as a scholar. And in 2008, I went to a meeting, this biennial workshop conference of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers, and there I found my people. So, after I got tenure, which was like 2016, I really turned my attention more fully to the scholarship of teaching and learning. I was kind of looking to teach some topics that students found naturally interesting, which was not the case with philosophy of mathematics. I kind of had to convince students that those topics are interesting, but when I turned more to teaching… I started teaching a philosophy of education class… I was connecting with students where they were a little more closely.

John: My experience was somewhat similar. I started teaching, and I was disappointed, though, with how much students were learning. So I started reading more about what other people were doing, and attending sessions at conferences related to pedagogy. And those are really great things for people to start getting involved in, and I’m still very much involved in all of that. As noted before, you began the summer camp at Hamilton. Could you tell us a little bit about how that came about?

Russell: Well, I’m going to start by telling you that we have kind of a running joke at the HCSPiP (That’s our acronym. It’s a terrible acronym, but anyway, we’ve embraced it.) It’s a summer program, not a summer camp. And so every time people call it a camp, I wince. I have to make a face, and this is around leadership, because I think of this as a serious academic program, but the students discovered very quickly the first year, they’re like, “Oh, it’s philosophy camp.” So yes, it is a summer camp, and they called it a summer camp at The Chronicle, but I’m calling it the summer program in philosophy. When I started working with the American Association of Philosophy Teachers and just getting involved in that organization very actively, I recognized that I had a lot of creative people around who had really interesting ideas about teaching and what they kind of wanted to do with their teaching. I also recognized that a lot of them were in places that were not as welcoming of pedagogical creativity as Hamilton was for me. I loved hanging out and talking, teaching with thoughtful and creative teachers, and when I talked with them, a lot of times, they’re like, “We can’t really do this because my students are like in these certain ways, and I’m not sure it would work,” or “my expectations of my department,” or “I’m not really allowed to do the kinds of things I would like to do.” Of course, I worked with lots of contingent faculty in the organization who are really concerned about their abilities to be creative in the classroom, and what happens if it doesn’t work out, and what does that mean for them in their attempts to get jobs or to get tenure, and so I thought, “wouldn’t it be great to have a space where people could just experiment, innovate in ways, and not ever have to worry about who’s looking over their shoulder and who might be skeptical of the kinds of innovations that they’re developing.” So I wanted to find a way to encourage more creativity, and also to just bring folks to me, so I could just sit here where I am and have folks bring creative pedagogy into my orbit. So that’s really how it got started. We have a fund for philosophy at Hamilton College that supports the program, and when I brought it to the department as an idea, they were enthusiastic to let me take it and run with it.

Rebecca: Sounds like some sneaky moves there to bring everyone to you?

Russell: Yeah, well, we have this money in the department, and I wanted to see how could I use it to support the community that had been so sustaining for me in my career.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about who the students and faculty are that participate in the program?

Russell: The way the money works is such that we need to have a certain complement of Hamilton College students in the program, and our current dean has been a little more liberal than the previous Dean about that. The previous team was like, “you must have half the students be Hamilton College students.” This year, we had eight of the 20 students were Hamilton College students, and then the other students, the other half, or more than half of the students, are from anywhere and everywhere. So we have an application, we send out calls for students to come to the program, and we get applications from all over the country and world. Most of the students are thinking of themselves as potential graduate students. They’re all undergrads, of course, for the program. So they apply. We get quite a few applications from students… again, all over the country and world… and our HR department has been just wonderfully supportive in granting visas. So we usually have three or four international students. We’re able to get visas to come in and do the program, so we really have a global population. That’s very exciting. But we actually start with the faculty. So the first thing we do is send out a call for proposals from faculty to teach in the program, and that just goes through regular like philosophy calls for papers or calls for conference presentations or something like that and we just send it out on the listservs and post it on the websites that are useful to get philosophy teachers. And then some years we only have, let’s say, 10 or 12 applications to teach in the program. Some years, we’ve had as many as 50 applications from faculty all over the world to come and teach here. We offer three classes a year, so we’re really looking for three creative, interesting class proposals from folks who want to come here and how they fit together. We have a committee that evaluates them, and so we get the three courses, and then once we have the three courses down, then we advertise for student applicants. Usually in the fall, we get the courses settled, and then over the winter, we get the students coming in.

John: How large are the classes? And when students sign up, do they sign up for just one course for the entire two-week session, or do they move from one course to another?

Russell: I’ll just say a little more about the overall structure of the program. So the three courses run simultaneously every day for the two weeks, Monday through Friday. So there’ll be 10 class sessions for each of the three courses. All 20 student participants will be in each of the three classes. So those classes are typically 90 minutes, sometimes we run them two hours. So the students are in class a lot during the day. The program is not graded. They’re not for credit, these classes. They’re really just for the love of philosophy. The students, they’re working hard, but they are not typically doing a lot of outside work. There’s not a lot of assessment of their work during the program. So we exhaust them, but they kind of like it. They come here because they love philosophy, they love trying to do it here. We warn them about it, “you’re going to be exhausted, you gotta be careful.” But they’re so excited to be with each other, to just be in a community of people who want to do philosophy together. They push through.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about the support available for faculty? Because you mentioned that this is an opportunity for faculty to experiment. So, can you talk about that aspect of the program?

Russell: Absolutely. When I was designing this program, my fantasy was having three excited instructors coming in here, and we would all talk about philosophy teaching all the time, and I would be in all the classes, and we would go to each other’s classes, and in the evenings, we would talk about them and think about and work collaboratively on that. And then I discovered very quickly, as we started to run the program, that directing the program meant that I just had to be wandering around with buckets of water putting out fires all the time, so I didn’t have a lot of time to sit and talk with the instructors about what they were doing. I got to go to some of the classes and see what they were doing a little bit, but then we had a student bit by a bat one time, and then I had a run around Utica trying to find how to get her rabies shots. This year we had a power outage, we had two tornadoes touched down locally, and then Hamilton College was out of power for the first two days. It was 96 degrees, 98 degrees. There were no fans, let alone air conditioners, and so we had to move everybody to a hotel for a couple of days. And these things happen when you bring these people together. And I thought we would just be sitting around talking teaching. In terms of running the program, it’s me, and I’ve always had an assistant director working with me. That has changed over the years. It started as an undergraduate who I thought would just help me, I don’t know, make photocopies or something, and then that turned into a real leadership role as well. This year, I had three assistant directors, an assistant director and two student assistant directors. So there’s a lot of work running the program, just making sure people can get to where they’re going. And we’re also ambitious about developing the program, putting in extracurriculars and other kinds of activities that build community, activities that expand on the work done in the classroom. We do field trips and have visiting speakers here, and there’s all sorts of stuff that we have to arrange. So a few years ago, my assistant director at the time said maybe we should hire someone to do that job. And so we put together a grant, and we got a grant from the American Philosophical Association to hire what we call a pedagogy resident, and that’s someone who works with the instructors and the tutors. We haven’t talked about the tutors yet, I should mention them, to develop the courses over the years. So by November, we really have the courses picked, and we have a pedagogy resident who’s an expert in philosophical pedagogy. And this year and last year, we were very lucky to have Emily Esch, who is a professor of philosophy at The College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University in Minnesota, and she’s been working with instructors and tutors in preparing the classes and thinking about what kinds of classroom activities would be useful in this context, and refining them, and just thinking about teaching in general. This year also, we sent around a new book on teaching philosophy called The Art of Teaching Philosophy, and we sent that to all our leadership, our instructors and tutors and assistant directors and the pedagogy resident had conversations about that, rooted in that book, just having them think more about pedagogy. So it’s been a real learning experience for everybody now that we’ve included the pedagogy resident every year. We had the grant for just the first year, and then we got to include it in our budget. So on the run up, the time preparing for the program, as the instructors are refining their plans, they’re working with the pedagogy resident, as the tutors are preparing together with the instructors, they’re working with the pedagogy resident and some use the pedagogy resident more and some less. Once we get to campus, the pedagogy resident is sitting in on classes and working with the instructors just to process what’s happening and to think about how to take it back to their home institution.

John: When I saw a report on this, it reminded me of a couple of programs I’ve been working in. I taught at the Duke Talent Identification Program for gifted high school students from 1987 up until 2020, and then I’ve been teaching in the Duke Pre-College program, and one of the things that I’ve done in both of those programs is I’d often experiment with things before I tried them in my regular classes and it sounds like this is a great opportunity to do that, where the students aren’t really put at much risk, and they often appreciate the variety in the instruction, because they often don’t see that in their regular classes. Are faculty in this program often then taking what they’ve experimented with here and then going back and using it in the classes and perhaps sharing it with other professors after this experience?

Russell: John, you get us. That’s exactly what we’re hoping will happen, and it seems like it’s happening. Yeah, we have immodest aims. We want to change the world of philosophy instruction, and we’re hoping that people are going back to their home institutions and working, not only teaching their classes, but talking to other people about the work that they’ve done here. We’ve also been encouraging our faculty to disseminate the work that they do here and we’ve been successful in a couple of ways. We’ve had some people publish the work that they’ve done at the HCSPiP in journals, teaching philosophy journals. I’ve had a piece coming out in December that I co-authored with one of the instructors here, and one of the students who was here, who is now going on to graduate school at TC at Columbia. So that’s been very satisfying to see the work start to filter out from here. We also have been pretty successful because our student population is pretty ambitious, some of them do go to graduate schools, and we have one student who was in the first year of the program in 2018, she’s just finishing up her PhD now, and she’s got a position at Harvard, and she was at Wesleyan last year, and I think she’s at Harvard now, and bringing that kind of interest in pedagogical innovation to what is often… you know, philosophy classrooms tend to be kind of staid and stiff a lot, and we’re trying to really make them student centered and active learning experiences. So I think it’s happening, I don’t really have good measures of how much it’s happening, except that I know that I’m in touch with a lot of the people who’ve come through the HCSPiP and I hear from them about what they’re doing, and I know that I’m doing it myself. So this article that I just mentioned that we’re publishing, Ashley Pryor from University of Toledo came here, I think it was summer of ‘22, and she taught a class on philosophy of comedy. So the class was, in the first place, some philosophical theories of comedy. There was some dry stuff, but then she’s also an improv artist, and she brought improv activities into the philosophy classroom. She had the students outside just doing all sorts of activities. And I thought this was fun, the students loved it, and it did have some philosophical content to it. And then the next year, I was teaching a philosophy of education class, and I had as a course mentor for that class, one of the students who had gone to the HCSPiP, and now she was a senior at Hamilton, and she was working with me with the first- year students. And she was like, “why don’t we bring some of that improv into the classroom?” And I was like, “Well, I’ll try some!” And so she and I worked together on some activities that were useful philosophically in the classroom, partly to build community in the classroom and partly to enable some quick thinking. In philosophy, we’re often thinking very carefully and slowly, but there are moments when it’s useful to think more quickly. And so that was really great. I noticed it was working just as I wanted it. Yeah, bring people in with ideas, and then I would steal them. I’ll say this, every good teacher is a thief. We see other people doing like, “I’m gonna steal that and make that mine.” So that’s what I did. I started taking some of these improv activities and making them my own, turning them into productive exercises that I think helped to build trust in the classroom. And I think this is something that we’ve been thinking about a lot over the past few instances of the HCSPiP is, how do you help students to dialog across disagreement? I know we’re all thinking about this these days. How do we help students really engage each other despite the worries they have about how they might be judged for what they say, and how do we get them to speak honestly and really work out honestly their views? And I think that it’s important to build trust in the classroom, and so sometimes you have to build trust in various ways. So I found that the improv activities sort of helped to build a little trust in community that then we could take advantage of that in having conversations that are more difficult. So anyway, I do know that I’m not the only one who’s learning from the program, but I don’t know that I have good ways of talking about how much that stuff gets used after they leave here.

John: One of the things I really like about that is the fact that some of these students do go on, and one of the things we talked about a lot on our podcast is how so many faculty come into teaching, emulating the people they’ve just observed. And often in graduate school, in particular, there’s not always a lot of innovative teaching or very student-centered teaching approaches, at least in many disciplines. So it’s really nice that there’s this opportunity for students to see this before they go on to grad school, and it sounds like it provides a wonderful experience, which could be used as a basis for them getting started later.

Russell: So I like to say the first error of teaching is “I learned it this way, that’s the way I’m going to teach it.” And I think we all have to recognize as instructors that we were typically exceptional learners, and our students won’t always be exceptional learners. So how do we reach our students in the most effective ways possible? And that requires thinking in ways that we were not trained. And of course, in philosophy, I’m sure this is true in other disciplines as well, there’s very little incentive in graduate school and in the early stages of one’s career to be creative and innovative about our teaching, especially coming out of R1s. Most of us come out of R1s at graduate school by definition, and then our student body isn’t the ones that we’ve been trained to teach. So we have to look in other ways. Let me say this more about the structure of the program. For every class we hire not just an instructor, but a teaching assistant or a resident assistant. These we call tutors, and they play both a role in the classroom and outside of the classroom. All of the tutors are graduate students in philosophy. Some of them are alums of the program. Some of them are alums of Hamilton College. We try to use that tutor position as a way of helping continue with our network of folks. They get a lot out of the program. Part of it is just working with more experienced instructors in the classroom. Part of it is just being around people who care about teaching, which is not necessarily what they’re getting in graduate school. And part of it is just being in that context. Two years ago, we had an instructor pull out of the program at what was pretty close to the last minute. Maybe we had a month to go, and it was a personal problem, a family issue, and it was perfectly understandable, but it left us sort of struggling, “what are we going to do with this third class?” And the tutors said, “Why don’t we teach the class! And we’ll reconfigure the class in a way that’ll be useful for all the tutors,” and they were all so eager to take that on. I have, as a research interest of my own, team-based learning. I’ve been working a lot on team-based learning in philosophy, and so we decided to run a team-based learning class in philosophy. I kind of structured the class, and then the tutors took it over and taught the class, and they learned how to design team-based learning activities. In team-based learning, there are specific ways in which activities are constructed, and so I taught them all about how to do TBL activities, and they just took it and ran with it, and that turned out to be one of the most successful classes we’ve ever had. The students loved it. In part, I think the instructors were a little younger, a little closer to their age. They’re very excited about philosophy, they’re in graduate school. So the students were looking at these folks who are like in these positions that they were imagining themselves going to be in soon. They were hoping to go to graduate school, just like these folks. And then everybody was in there being a little vulnerable, learning together, and it was a great context and one of the most successful classes we’ve had.

Rebecca: I’m glad you picked up on talking about the tutors, because you had mentioned them earlier, and I was finding that really interesting and it seems like that’s actually an integral piece to the project, because it’s a conduit between the instructors, graduate school, and undergrads who are looking toward graduate school. So they’re kind of right in the middle [LAUGHTER] like a linchpin to the whole thing.

Russell: Exactly. And as I said, they have roles in the classroom, and different instructors use the tutors in different ways, sometimes their role in the classroom isn’t as robust as it is in others. It depends on the class and each of these classes is different. It’s the brainchild of an instructor, and they may not have thought about this in terms of how to use a tutor. And these are 20- person classes, so it’s not like we need TAs to be managing the classroom. So they have classroom roles, but they also have community roles, let’s say, outside the classroom, in helping the students to prepare for classes, to manage some questions the students might have about the readings or how to prepare, or what’s expected. But also, this year it was very hot, and this year the tutors wanted to do a water balloon… they called it a water balloon fight, I said, “I’m not going to endorse a fight, we’ll do a water balloon festival.” So this is a running joke this year, that they were having a festival. So I got a hose and a bunch of water balloons, and they were out there just trying to beat the heat on campus, and the tutors played a big role in that. So there’s some community building and some classroom work. And also, one other thing we do with the tutors is, on the middle weekend, we have the tutors run a session on philosophy after college and what it’s like to apply to graduate school, and how you might find philosophy in your lives other than graduate school, and we don’t have any instructors or leadership go to that, that’s just the tutors and the students. They have some open conversation and some hard conversations about how difficult graduate school can be and how difficult it can be to find an academic career. And sometimes students come away a little dispirited, but I think they’ve gotten an honest view from some people who are in the middle of it.

John: In a program like this, there are some costs for the support, for feeding the students, for providing housing, for providing air conditioning when it works, or water balloons when it doesn’t. How is this program funded?

Russell: So the Truax Fund for Philosophy. It was created in the 1950s by some Hamilton alums. It was an Hamilton alum from class, I think, of 1907 in honor of his father, who had been class of 1875 and there’s an endowed fund. And we are very grateful for the largesse of our forebears to have given us this money. It’s not easy to spend money in philosophy, [LAUGHTER] and the fund is quite robust, and so this is where the program started. We were just very lucky to have this money that we can support people. So let me say, not only is it feeding them and buying water balloons, but we also pay for all travel for all participants, and every participant gets a stipend, which we call a fellowship scholarship for the student participants, because we want to make sure that the program is open to anybody, no matter their financial situation. We pay for all transportation from anywhere in the world and back, and we pay everybody a fellowship scholarship for being here. So it’s quite an attractive thing for students if they have i nterest in philosophy, and they are very grateful, especially some of the international students. That money, which is not a lot of money, the students get $750 for the two weeks of participation here. We see that money as salary replacement for the time that they’re here. But for some of the students, that’s quite a lot of money for them and we heard from one student that it really funded his studies for the next two years. So that was so exciting for us, that he could be here and be such a great participant and also benefit, not just intellectually and pedagogically, but also financially from the program. I wish there were a better recipe for other people to do it, because it is quite expensive, and finding the money to run a program like this would be a little bit of a challenge, I know, for others. But I will say I think we could run a great program without all the money. I mean, we need to feed them still, obviously, but we’re glad that we are able to be as inclusive and diverse as that money allows us to be.

Rebecca: It’s nice when you have the kind of funding that will let all that stress to go away and you can focus really on the subject matter of the program. I really love all the layers of mentorship that you’ve described in the program, the mentorship from the pedagogy expert, the mentorship from the faculty, the mentorship from the tutors [LAUGHTER] right to the students. There’s so many layers there. Can you talk a little bit about some of the reactions students have had from the opportunity to interact with so many folks in the discipline?

Russell: I also hope that I have some mentorship role as well. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Yeah, I didn’t mean to not include you. [LAUGHTER]

Russell: No, it’s very funny, because I really do, and sometimes the program, it feels like I’m just working behind the scenes and I don’t have an active role. But last year, not this past summer, the summer before this, I got COVID in the middle of the program, and I had to work remotely for the second half of the program. And I think I have some role in trying to foster a kind of supportive atmosphere that I think that’s very helpful. But yeah, okay, this wasn’t about me, this question. This was about students and how they find their mentorship. Look, one of the tutors said to me this year, this was his second year in the program, and he said he learned more in his two weeks with the program… the first time he was with it… about teaching, then he had his whole life all put together. And that was such a rewarding comment for me to hear how useful we’ve been. But Hamilton College, we typically send about three quarters of a student to graduate school every year, in other words, less than one a year. And this past year, we had four students who were thinking about doing graduate school and are looking at it. We’ve never had those kinds of numbers. And what happened was at the HCSPiP, they started seeing how exciting philosophy could be, especially when taught creatively and thoughtfully, and it just really was inspiring for them. So I see that in the increased interest in their classes when they come out of the HCSPiP and they come back. We had a rising sophomore a few years ago who was interested in philosophy, but kind of not going anywhere. He wasn’t the greatest student, he had, the interest in philosophy, but not quite the skills. And we saw coming out of the HCSPiP, how motivated he became and how sophisticated he became, especially being around some of the older students, not even the tutors and the faculty, but just some of the older students. And that’s one way in which we sell to our administration that we should use this money for this summer program is because it really does benefit the Hamilton students who participate. We can see the academic sophistication just grow by leaps and bounds in some of these students after they come back after the HCSPiP. We also had six students from last year’s program in the fall, they did their senior theses, and then they presented them at the APA at the eastern divisional meeting of the American Philosophical Association in January. And we’ve never had that kind of interest in professional philosophy and real academic scholarship. So we see it with the Hamilton students. For other students who come from wherever they’re coming from, this year, we had two students from Poland, we had a student from China, and we’ve had students from Indonesia recently, Colombia. We certainly hear from them that this was an amazing experience. We do some assessment. We have a robust survey at the end of the program, and we ask some questions. We’re looking at these results longitudinally and thinking about the program and how to improve it. But often we see them briefly, and off they go, and we hope to hear from them later, I will say, at the APA this past January where we had all the Hamilton students there, I noticed that there were like a dozen, maybe 14, HCSPiP alums who were on the program at the eastern divisional meeting of the APA, and so I found money to take them all out to lunch, and we had a little HCSPiP reunion there. And we started hearing from people. where they were going and how they were using it and how they were carrying in the hearts, the ideas about innovative, student-centered pedagogies.

John: Now you’ve talked about a number of specific methods, team-based learning, improv and so forth. What are some of the other interesting strategies that faculty have tried exploring in this program?

Russell: We’ve had some great classes. Not every class is super successful, but we learn from every class. A couple of years ago, we had a class on Hobbes and Minecraft. So this is Hobbes’s political theory. All the students got Minecraft accounts, and the class days basically took place on the Minecraft platform, and the instructor, Rebeccah Lieby, was asking the students to test out Hobbes’s claims about the state of nature. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase that “life in a state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” So she was like, “well, let’s see what happens in the Minecraft environment, and test Hobbes’ claims about that.” And so that was super fun. And really, the students really rose to the nasty, brutish, and short aspect of Hobbesian political theory. So I think there was some confirmation there. Last year we had an instructor, Sara Uckelman, from Durham in the UK. She was testing fiction writing as a philosophical method. They read a little philosophy, but what they were really doing in the class was writing fiction as a way of exploring philosophical themes, so that was pretty cool. It’s not a standard pedagogical tool to have students writing fiction in philosophy classes. One of our early very successful classes had students doing a lot of metacognition, so they were reading some really difficult work. They were reading George Yancy’s Backlash book, I don’t know if you know George’s “Dear White America” letter, that he ended up getting a lot of backlash, and he came to the program and visited with us and participated, and also Susan Brison’s account of her rape and assault. So they’re really, really heavy, difficult material. And when you’re reading that kind of heavy, difficult material on racism and sexual violence, you have to be careful about what you say in class, and students have to be careful. So the instructor was Ann Cahill from Elon University in North Carolina, she had developed these both hand signals and little note cards that allowed students to signal what kind of conversational move they were about to make before they made it, and just helped students to process what they were saying and to help other people see, are you presenting an illustration of what someone else said? Are you presenting more supporting arguments? Are you presenting a counter argument? Are you raising a question? There are all these different kinds of moves that can be made in a philosophical conversation, and sometimes it takes a while for students to understand what someone else is saying, because they don’t understand what kind of conversational move they’re going to make. So they had signals for what kind of conversational move that was going to be. That was really an exciting class, one of our most successful, not that I’m playing favorites or comparing, I’ll say one more. The first year we had someone who was a philosopher as well as an artist. Her name is Juli Thorson, she’s emeritus at Ball State University, now she is, and she had drawing activities that were related to questions about personal identity. So they were reading philosophy of personal identity and then doing these drawing activities for students to use the other side of their brain in processing these kinds of questions about themselves. I can tell you about more, but those are pretty good examples of really exciting stuff that is not your typical philosophy lecture.

Rebecca: One of the things that was mentioned in The Chronicle article was that a professor who had been participating in the program noted that in her regular classes, she was struggling with students submitting AI-generated work, as we all are.

Russell: Yeah.

Rebecca: Do you have any ideas of some strategies that philosophy faculty have been using to discourage the use of AI as a substitute of learning? With all this experimentation going around you, we’re eager for ideas.

Russell: Look, I wish I had a secret key that would fix things, but here’s the way I’m thinking about it, and I think this is what I bring to my own classes, and that I’m trying to do at the HCSPiP: learning is change, it’s changing the way you’re thinking, and change is hard, and so we have to start by acknowledging that real learning, real honest learning, done with real integrity, is not easy. I mean, some things are easy, but philosophy, not so much,[LAUGHTER] because we’re asking students to really dig into their core beliefs and examine them, and that can be scary for people. On the other hand, philosophy, when done well, is a lot of fun. It’s a social activity, it’s communicative. We have this image of philosophy as like the lone, great man speaking words of wisdom, but that’s not really how philosophy is done. Philosophy is done in community, in dialog, hearing various perspectives and listening to them and allowing your own preconceptions to be challenged. And if it’s done in a threatening way, or one in which there’s not trust in the community, then students will shut down, and then they’re going to go on and they’re just going to do whatever they can to get their grades. And of course, they’re going to turn to whatever resources are rational, like these AIs. In some ways. I understand why students do this. They’re overworked and anxious, and it seems like a rational thing to do, but what we’re trying to do is make philosophy classes more interesting, more engaging, more student centered, and more fun. And if we do that, we’re hoping that students are going to respond by saying, “Oh, yeah, this is fun stuff to do, and if I trust my community, I could really like grow” and look, students are skeptical about received wisdom. I mean, we see this all over. They’re skeptical about being told what to do. And so if they’re empowered to really think for themselves, maybe they’re really gonna actually try to think for themselves. So that’s what we’re trying to do in this program, is to change the way people think about philosophy and humanities more generally, from like, learning the received wisdom and regurgitating it to like, “Oh, here’s a chance for me to really think about these questions and to think about what people are telling me, and to develop my own views about it.” And that’s what student-centered pedagogy is all about. So it’s not a way of policing against the AIs, it’s a way of undermining the motivation that students have for turning to the AIs. We are very lucky at Hamilton College to have an open curriculum, and what that means is that students do not have to take any classes they don’t want to take. We don’t have a gen ed program. We don’t have required classes. So on the first day of class, almost all students there are a few exceptions, but almost all students are in classes they want to be in, and so that’s an opportunity for us to say, “Okay, you want to learn about this stuff, let’s do it in a way that is going to be useful and productive for you, so that when we give you assignments, these are assignments about things that you want to learn, that you’ve committed to trying to learn about, and they’re going to help you, rather than just be assessments of did you file away enough information and regurgitate it back to me.” It’s about assignment design. Can you make assignments in such a way that students see that they are for this student’s benefits, rather than just ways of policing and testing them.

John: That’s a challenge we’re all working with, we’re all facing, and that’s in general, the sort of approach we encourage people to use, giving students more autonomy and being transparent about the benefits they get by engaging in this themselves, rather than just outsourcing their assignments to some external tool.

Russell: Yeah, yeah.

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

Russell: So this year, we broadened our program by having early arrival and orientation for our international participants, and that was really productive. And every year we’re thinking about ways in which we can improve the program with trying not to extend ourselves financially or too much personally. There are some sustainability questions, both the money and my own ability [LAUGHTER] to work over the summer on this project. It’s a lot of work, so we’re moving to an every other year approach for sustainability reasons, but mostly the big project that we’re going to work on this year, while we’re taking a year off, is to develop more courses led by graduate student tutors, with help from the experienced faculty because I think that was the place where we realized that, and you caught this, which was great, that that kind of mentorship of the graduate students was something that we’ve done quite effectively, I think. And so we’re going to be writing some grants and thinking about, how do we expand the program in such a way that we can give a little more space for graduate students to be developing their work? But I think the core of the program is really very good. We had a great year again this year, and we’re just going to gather our strength and do it again. I wish we could expand it to more people. And it’s not even the money that is the big barrier, It’s just It would be so much more work and not sustainable.

John: It would be really nice if more disciplines had this. I’d love to see something like this in economics.

Russell: I would love to talk to people, if they’re thinking about developing these kinds of classes. I have a lot of resources. I’ve developed this stuff ground up and anybody who wants to try something like this out, I’ll say this, several of our alums, that is, people who were students in the program have gone on to graduate school and started summer programs in philosophy for high school students, and what a wonderful testament that is to our success. They’ve taken from what we’ve done here, and they’ve sort of applied it in different contexts. So I think the way in which we create a context for learning that’s not tied to grades and credits and just for the love of learning, that’s been a real joy.

Rebecca: Well, thanks for sharing your program with us. It’s always nice to hear about these opportunities for learners to be excited about their discipline.

Russell: I really appreciate you inviting me on, and I’m always happy to talk about the HCSPiP, so thanks for the time.

John: Well, thank you. We really enjoyed this conversation, and we look forward to talking to you at some point in the future as well.

Russell: Great. I’d be happy to come back and talk about team-based learning or something. I’m writing a book on team-based learning this fall as I’m on leave, and that’s my plan.

[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]

404. Critical Thinking Therapy

Critical thinking skills are important in an environment where misinformation flourishes. In this episode, Linda Elder joins us to explore strategies higher ed institutions can use to encourage the development of critical thinking skills to improve the quality of life for students and faculty.

Linda is an educational psychologist and a leading authority on critical thinking. She is the President of the Foundation for Critical Thinking and the Executive Director of the Center for Critical Thinking. Linda is the author or co-author of 6 books on critical thinking.  Her most recent book is Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness and Self-Actualization.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Critical thinking skills are important in an environment where misinformation flourishes. In this episode, we explore strategies higher ed institutions can use to encourage the development of critical thinking skills to improve the quality of life for students and faculty.

[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 Linda Elder. She is an educational psychologist and a leading authority on critical thinking. Linda is the President of the Foundation for Critical Thinking and the Executive Director of the Center for Critical Thinking. She is the author or co-author of 6 books on critical thinking. Her most recent book is Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness and Self-Actualization. Welcome Linda.

Linda: Thank you for having me.

John: Thank you for joining us. Our teas today are: Linda, Are you drinking tea?

Linda: Yes, I am drinking tea.

Rebecca: Do you have a favorite kind that you’re drinking today?

Linda: It is Assam Banaspaty tea from India. And the short term is Assam tea. And it’s a black tea which is pure. It has a slightly sweet taste. Does not require any additional sweeteners, and I steep it, of course, in this little pot from England with loose tea.

Rebecca: …a gorgeous pot. [LAUGHTER]

John: It is. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Well, I think that the teas that don’t require sweetening are the best. Sounds wonderful.

Linda: I often look for a black tea that is pure, not mixed. So for those to whom that appeals, this would be a good option.

Rebecca: Sounds really good. I have an English afternoon today,

John: And I think that is Assam tea, isn’t it?

Rebecca: I think it is, yeah.

John: Okay, and I have a ginger peach black tea from the Republic of Tea.

Rebecca: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss Critical Thinking Therapy. Before we begin discussing your new book, though, it might be helpful to discuss the definition of critical thinking. How do you define critical thinking?

Linda: Well, it’s a complicated question. There is not a single definition, but there is a core essence of critical thinking, which if you lack that, then you don’t have critical thinking. There’s a lot of confusion as to what critical thinking means. Most people will say that they are critical thinkers, but if you ask them what it is, they would likely pause. There are a lot of reasons why there’s confusion as to the definition, or, let’s say, a reasonable conception. But let’s begin with this. I could begin with a question instead of an answer, which would be possibly this: “How do you… you anyone… How do you decide what to believe and what not to believe? How do you know that you are using the best standards for thinking in every circumstance of your life? In other words, how do you even decide how to live? What criteria do you use? Here, enter critical thinking. So what humans mainly do as we go through life is reason. We tend to ignore reasoning. Critical thinking asks what is involved in reasoning. So how do we analyze the reasoning we’re doing every day? How do we take it apart? And then once we’ve done that, how do we assess the thinking that we’re doing for quality? So we know that we need standards for thinking. We know that we need to take our thinking apart, and we know that we need to look for problems in our thinking. Critical Thinking provides explicit tools for that in order to improve our reasoning where necessary, and to be able to accurately interpret other people’s reasoning, to judge other people’s reasoning in ways that make sense, again, in context. So what is critical thinking? It’s the study of reasoning in which we look for problems in reasoning in order to correct those problems. We begin with a number of assumptions, one of them being that if we leave our thinking to itself without intervention, it may well be problematic, and we don’t want to have some kind of nebulous, ambiguous approach to our reasoning. We want the best tools that we can find through our natural languages, the best concepts that we can develop to guide our reasoning, and this is what critical thinking provides.

John: You’ve done a tremendous amount of work on critical thinking. In fact, on our very second podcast, your work had come up on that. That was eight years ago, I think, now.

Rebecca: Yeah.

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

Linda: Critical thinking, in and of itself, provides, as I said, a set of tools for us to help understand what is even happening in our reasoning and how to improve our reasoning. But in and of itself, the tools are… they just sit there. They need to do something. So they need to be applied to domains of our lives. So we need to apply critical thinking to our personal relationships, to our intimate relationships, to our parenting, we need to apply critical thinking within science, within technology, within psychology, within sociology. Within every field of study, critical thinking is required. So critical thinking, again, provides tools that open up other systems of thought. Critical thinking therapy is a contextualization then of critical thinking itself, it’s critical thinking applied to the emotional dimension of the mind, which we need to develop in order to achieve self actualization, or let’s say, a self- actualizing lifestyle, and to achieve happiness insofar as we can achieve happiness within the conditions of our lives. So critical thinking therapy is a natural contextualization of critical thinking. And for me personally, this is true, because when I first started learning critical thinking, it was the personal application that brought me into the theory, whereas most people who are teaching, which I was doing then and am doing now, most people who are teaching come to critical thinking, not asking the question, “How can critical thinking help me,” but “how can I bring this to my students?” And again, the assumption there is, I don’t need critical thinking, but my students do, which is a faulty assumption. But in any case, I’ve always seen critical thinking as something that I would want to employ, to live at the highest level, again, of self fulfillment and to be able to reach into my own capacities at the highest levels that I can.

Rebecca: Can you talk about how improved critical thinking skills can lead to increased happiness and self actualization that you were just pointing to?

Linda: Yeah. So let me begin to unpack the concept of critical thinking a bit, which will lead to some of these skills that you are referring to. So, remember I said that critical thinking involves analyzing reasoning and assessing reasoning. So let’s bring in some theory of critical thinking now going further. So when we open up reasoning, we find, in essence, that there are eight elements of reasoning that we can always count on being there and that we can always enter when we know reasoning is present. Let me just go through these briefly. Whenever we reason, we reason for a purpose or a set of purposes. We ask a question or a set of questions. We use information that is relevant to the question. We make, hopefully, we make inferences based on the information and the assumptions, another element of reasoning that we bring to the situation. Our assumptions are connected to our concepts, the ideas that guide our reasoning, which are also connected to our point of view, another element of reasoning, all of which leads to implications and consequences. So let me say those again, purpose, question, information, inferences or conclusions, concepts, assumptions, point of view, and implication. So what we understand is that whenever we reason, which is right now, we’re all reasoning, Each of us is reasoning, and anyone who’s joining us in the audience is reasoning. Each of us has purposes. Each of us is asking questions. Each of us is using information. Each of us is making inferences. We will do this automatically. We don’t learn to reason, we automatically reason. And so you can see how, if you understand these eight elements, well, you have a leg up from everyone else, because you now know something that’s involved in reasoning. And therefore you can always ask at least eight questions: What is my purpose right now? What questions am I asking right now? What information am I using right now? So let’s go to a more specific and pointed skill related to mental health. So let’s say that we understand now that whenever we reason, we have a purpose, and anyone else that we’re reasoning with or against, let’s say, also has a purpose or a set of purposes. So when you are in an argument with your spouse, you might stop and ask yourself, What is my purpose right now? What am I really trying to accomplish? Is my purpose to sustain the marriage. Is my purpose to give to myself as much as I can to the development of the other person. Is my purpose to win the argument. Is my purpose to crush the other person. You see how simple that is. I often say that the early, at least, moves in critical thinking are so easy, they’re hard. [LAUGHTER] Everyone can do that, and everyone avoids doing that because they don’t want to sometimes see their purposes. Often the problem is that you don’t want to see your purpose, not that you don’t know that you have a purpose, but now you know you have a purpose. So next time you’re talking to your spouse or your supervisor or your people who report to you or anyone else, you can always ask yourself this question, what is my purpose right now? What’s this other person’s purpose? See, we can do the same thing with question. What question am I asking right now? So if my purpose is to crush the other person, then my question will be, how can I best crush this person? How can I put my words together in such a way as to actually demolish this person. Or it could be physically… people are beating each other up, and what is their purpose? Well, the problem is often that we have a rational purpose, which would be reasonable and that would be competing against an irrational purpose. The hidden purpose may be to win, the rational purpose would be to have a healthy relationship. But those two things don’t work together. They can’t be reconciled, so that you’re either going to have to decide if you’re going to be a rational person, and that means that now let me bring in some other theory of critical thinking. So we’ve talked a little about the elements of reasoning. You have a purpose, you’re asking questions, you’re using information. Now, once we have opened our thinking up and we’ve examined it by saying, “Okay, well, here’s our purpose, here’s our question. So now what?” Now we need to see whether these elements of our reasoning are adhering to what we term intellectual standards. We can also call these critical thinking standards. Intellectual standards… again, they’re so easy, they’re hard. What are some of the essential ones? Clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, sufficiency, significance, fairness, and there are others. And these intellectual standards come from hundreds or 1000s or more of intellectual standards extant in all natural languages, the languages that we speak every day. So these standards come to us through history, and the best scholars in every field adhere to these intellectual standards. The thinkers that are functioning at the highest level in every field are the people who are the clearest, the most accurate, the most relevant, the most significant, the most broad (meaning they can think within multiple viewpoints), the most deep (meaning they can think through the complexities and the issues), they’re the most logical, their thinking can be justified. Do you see this is one of our primary goals, then, in critical thinking is to therefore ask, “Am I being clear right now?” Let’s go back to your argument with your spouse. You can ask yourself whether you are trying to even understand the other person. Am I even trying to be clear about what this person is saying, or am I saying? “Oh yeah, I know what you mean by that, but let me just tell you how you’re wrong” and you’re just stepping over the other person. So these are intellectual standards that all of us need to adhere to. Notice again, how easy they are. But then I could ask you this, how often do you see these being violated in everyday life? These simple, simple, simple strategies. And finally, in critical thinking, we’re not only, though, looking for skills. We’re looking to develop within ourselves a way of living so that we are embodying intellectual characteristics, intellectual and ethical characteristics, which we call intellectual virtues, such as intellectual humility, being able to distinguish at any moment what I know from what I do not know, and not stepping over the boundaries there. Intellectual integrity, saying what I mean and meaning what I say, and talking to you here in a certain way, and if you come and visit my house, you see the exact same person, not a different person. And if you follow me around all day long, you see the same person, not a different person, not a hypocrite. Some people act one way at work and the opposite way at home. Which are you? Are you a person of integrity or not? Fair mindedness Is another intellectual virtue. Intellectual autonomy, this is essential to the critical thinker and to mental health, because one of the reasons why people get in trouble in terms of their mental health is they’re always looking to be validated by someone else, and this is always going to potentially work against you in terms of mental well being, because you may not be able to, first of all, find anyone you can really rely on, and you may often find people who you can’t rely on to have good judgment. In any case, you don’t want to go around conforming to everything and anything. Or you don’t want to be conforming to the wrong standards. So intellectual virtues are essential for us to develop. So that’s just a beginning place for thinking about the theory of critical thinking, and then we’ll get into this presently. But one thing we have to also understand is that there are two parts of the mind, or one part with two parts, and that is the part that is working against our rationality. That’s the egocentric and the sociocentric dimension. And I’ve already implied these, but the basic idea is, when we’re being egocentric, we’re either locked within our point of view, that it has some problematic logic to it, but we can’t see it, so we make it look logical in our minds, or we’re just being selfish, and that’s easy to document. Sociocentric thinking has the same parallel, thinking which is either just all for the group. What is good for the group is good anyone else on the outside, just we don’t care about you. We’re not concerned about you. You’re not part of our group, so forget it. Or being locked within a dysfunctional logic, and either or all of these barriers can be functioning at the same time in the mind. So that critical thinking, we can’t just teach the skills you see, for example, I can say, well, all right, teach your students to be logical. Well, what if their egocentric side tells them not to be logical? What if their sociocentric side, which is very powerful and wants to conform, conforms to things that are entirely illogical? So again, the standard is easy, but the application is a challenge.

John: One of the things you talk about in your book is how we often engage in self deception, and you’ve alluded to this a little bit already. How might this be relevant to students and faculty who face issues like imposter syndrome or stereotype threat or anxiety, which certainly seems to have been rising for both students and faculty in the last few years in academic settings.

Linda: Well, first of all, these problems that you mentioned, imposter syndrome, anxiety and etc, these are coming from the egocentric mind, and they’re coming from a position of fear. And now all humans have certain self-handicapping tendencies, some people more so than others. So take imposter syndrome, the idea that you’re actually not very good, you’re not good enough, and even though you may be an expert in your field, you still have a sense that you’re not quite good enough, that you’re a fake, that you’re a fraud, even though the evidence does not support that. Well, on the one hand, you are working rationally to develop your mind, and so you are achieving, that’s the rational side. But the irrational side is saying these other negative things. And I can say for anyone who’s listening, whether you have the imposter syndrome or any other handicap that you create in your mind, what you’ve got to do is command that, control it and stop it, whatever it takes. And there are many ways to do this. There’s not just one path to rationality. There are many paths. Just take one, any of them. So what you want to see is that when your mind is telling you things that are… let’s say it’s a common pattern for a writer who may be very skilled to think she’s not a very good writer. So her ego while she’s writing is telling her “you’re really no good, you know that, you’re not going to get this sentence worked out. This is the time you’re going to actually fail.” Now, and those other times you managed to make it through, but not this time. This time they’re going to find out you’re really a fake and a fraud. Well, when we study egocentric thinking as theory and sociocentric thinking as theory, then we know, “oh, that’s what’s happening. That’s just the dark side of my mind. Everyone’s got one. That’s what mine is doing. But look what I’ve accomplished over here.” Now let’s apply the standard of logicalness. Is it logical to think you’re not going to work this out whenever you’ve worked it out so many other times before, and you’re basically doing something very similar. And now some people have the opposite problem, where they are over confident, and those people often also fail because they are just blundering forward. “I can do this, I can do that. I’m good at this. I’m good at that. I’m Miss smart or Mr. Smart. I know everything. You know nothing.” So all of that is coming from the dark side. Remember the Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde conception. That’s a symbolism for each of us. And the idea is that within each of us are two different persons, really, two different ways of thinking. One is the rational side, the reasonable side, the one that tries to be logical and tries to be accurate and tries to be clear, even when we don’t know what any of those mean. Everyone thinks critically to some degree, or they wouldn’t be alive. But we don’t think critically enough, so we need the explicit tools so that we know when we are not thinking critically, and whenever your mind is telling you any of this kind of nonsense, either “you’re so great, it’s unbelievable,” or “you’re so pathetic, you’ll never be anything,” you’ve got to recognize that as just nonsense. Now, one of the things that critical thinking therapy does is it provides activities or exercises that we all need to engage in if we’re going to get command of the mind. You don’t have to engage in these exact ones, but if you’re not exercising the mind and asking it to make moves that it’s not comfortable with, you’re not feeling any kind of pain, because your beliefs have always been the same and you intend them to always be the same, then you won’t be able to develop much in terms of your self fulfillment, and so we need to think of the development of the mind in the same way that we think of the development in playing an instrument. So if you asked a music teacher, let’s say someone who’s teaching students to play the violin… you said, “How many years do you think it would take your students to study and learn and practice to be good enough for us to want to actually sit in the room and listen to them so they’re not screeching it out.” And I actually asked that question to a violin teacher, and she said, “three to five years.” So that’s what I’m telling everyone here, three to five years working on your thinking before you will have any sense that you know what critical thinking really is, because right now, most people are what I would call unreflective thinkers. They’re going along. Their thinking is all right. Many people are listening saying, “Oh, that sounds pretty good, but I really don’t have time for this.” And that’s what most teachers say, “It’s great stuff, but I don’t have time.” But then we are having to be subjected to these people’s reasoning. And like, if somebody’s playing the violin, and screeching, I can walk off. But if you’re giving me your reasoning and it’s lousy, and you’re a politician and you have power, then that’s another matter. So this is not just critical thinking is a nice thing that we could do if we wanted to, it’s essential to solve the pressing problems that we face as humans living on the planet.

Rebecca: Sounds like one of the things that you’re advocating for is that to bring critical thinking to our students, we have to bring critical thinking to ourselves and really work on that as a kind of a professional development opportunity for ourselves.

Linda: Well, a main reason is because you don’t know what it is if you haven’t studied it, and you shouldn’t be trying to teach it to someone else if you yourself have not studied something. And one of the problems that I have with most faculty that are teaching critical thinking, and they’re saying they are now experts in critical thinking, if I were to ask them what theory they have studied, they would typically not be able to tell me. So in other words, let’s say someone who’s a sociologist before, now they can teach a critical thinking course, because that’s available at the college and it’s required. So they can take their old course, which was sociology, and now they can call it sociology and critical thinking, or literature and critical thinking, or psychology and critical thinking, but if I, as a critical thinking theoretician, said that I was an expert in their field, they wouldn’t tolerate that. But they expect us to tolerate it the other way around. So, you’re not an expert in critical thinking, but you’re acting as if you were, and this is a problem that’s emerged over the last few decades. We’ve always had the problem of faculty thinking that they are already teaching critical thinking, but now they have the label, and now educational institutions, so called, are bringing this into their mission statements by implication. And we are now calling departments of education across the country, and we’re saying, “How are you defining that?” And we’re getting a hostile response. They don’t want to answer any of our questions. They don’t think they should have to. So if you have not studied something from the point of the scholarship, that you’re a faculty member and you’re acting like you have done that, I have a problem with that, and it’s a disservice to the students. So it’s worse than it was before, because critical thinking is now floating about, faculty can grab it and say, “I do it.” Philosophers have largely lost their influence over critical thinking, because they haven’t, for the most part, embraced a progressive conception of it. They’ve tried to keep us in the dark ages with argumentation theory that is narrow and informal logic theory, which is narrow, and this still is influencing the courses that students are taking. It’s old. It’s antiquated. We’ve had better theory since the 1980s and there’s absolutely no excuse. So we face a lot of problems, and trying to get faculty to see if they have to learn this, rather than just take a few activities home to their students, it’s a hard message to get across.

John: One of the things you suggest is that it may be helpful to have faculty work together on developing critical thinking skills. Would a reading group on your book or some type of faculty community of practice perhaps be helpful in building critical thinking skills for faculty, so that we might be better at helping students develop critical thinking skills?

Linda: Absolutely, I’m a very strong advocate of long-term learning through study groups at the Foundation for Critical Thinking, through our critical thinking community, we now have three long-term study groups going. One’s been going five years, and we are studying theory of critical thinking, we’re applying it to our lives from the point of view of self actualization. And we’re also studying what I call the essential classics list. So we’re reading the works of authors such as Erich Fromm, Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, Seneca, Socrates. So I’ve pulled together a list… of course, there are many classics we want the best classics, the ones that illuminate critical thinking the best, and those are the ones we are studying. These are very rich assignments, and we’re all studying the books that we were supposed to learn, [LAUGHTER] that we never did read within or that all of the titles that we’ve heard but we’ve never read, such as Dickens novels and Jane Austen novels and so forth. So we are becoming more literate, but more importantly, we are looking for the best ideas within these works that connect to criticality and that help form our constellation of ideas that guide and transform us as humans. That’s the idea. So there are many ways to form study groups. You can do it with one book. We can do it with multiple books. I certainly recommend it with critical thinking therapy. It’s quite a thick book, so you can work with this over a long period of time, and you can dip into it at almost any place. So yes, I strongly believe in studying together. And there again, people can join us. We’re going to start in a few weeks, a weekly critical thinking therapy workshop meeting time, which will be, as I say, once a week. And people can email us to get on our email list: cct@criticalthinking.org and we will send you an email to let you know when these will be in and we will have some activities for those meetings, but people will not be required to do those activities. They can join us just as they wish, and we’ll be discussing how we are using critical thinking therapy to improve our lives. So I’m a very strong advocate for not only study groups, but long-term study groups, and people can also join our long term study groups at the foundation.

Rebecca: So you’ve talked about one barrier that students face in developing reflective thinking and critical thinking skills is maybe not having expertise in the classroom teaching the critical thinking skills. Are there other barriers in the way that our college systems work that prevent students from engaging in this kind of deep, reflective thinking?

Linda: Well, almost everything that we do in schooling is antithetical to the development of critical thinking. From the way that we assess students with the neat and tidy assessments that we use, the inauthentic assessments, to the way that we drill them, we still have the old, antiquated lecture method being used. It’s mind boggling, and we have all this theory of pedagogy that is largely ignored for the old fashioned way of I want to deliver it this way, and I have students at the university level with these huge, huge class sizes, just again, giving students assignments, knowing they didn’t read the book, telling them again what you know they didn’t read as a faculty member. This is not going to develop the mind. What we must do is ask this, what does it take from the point of view of, let’s say, a faculty member, if I’m a teacher, what do I need to do to engage my students intellect every second they’re in my presence, every second they’re in my room. How can I get them off of the bench and onto the court? And that will not be through lecture unless it’s a very rare student, and even then, only for brief periods of time, and that’s including all of us. So we’ve got to work our way through ideas. The only way we can achieve ideas is through internalizing them using our own will, And right now, we’ve got the insanity of the technological world that our students have are just sucked into and for example, okay, so they go to YouTube and they just look at what’s there, just what’s available to me on this social media, what’s available to me on this they’re not deliberately making any decisions other than to open their computer and mindlessly go to some web address that feels good and this is happening. This is not something that we can ignore in the classroom. We can’t ignore any parts of reality in the classroom. The classroom should be part of reality. So we have that. The students are being increasingly dumbed down. They think they’re doing something when they’re on the computer. They think they’re developing their mind. So. for example, students who are on the computer and they’re playing the guitar on the computer, that’s not how you play the guitar. You get a guitar, you put it in your hands, you play it. They don’t even realize that they’re not doing anything except that maybe they’re enjoying themselves. So what I’m saying is these are barriers, and the students are coming with this idea that they need to be fed everything. Everything’s going to be easy, and they’re going to be automatically accomplishing things if they just turn their computer on, they sit there and they play these games or whatever they’re doing to their minds, and they’re not learning to read, to comprehend what they’re reading. We have a [LAUGHTER] thinkers guide entitled “How to read a paragraph” which is almost entirely ignored in academia. It teaches students how to take a sentence and say it in your own words, for example. How many students can’t even do that? Read a sentence, say it in your own words. See how, again, so easy, it’s hard. So there are a lot of reasons why we’re not advancing critical thinking in the classroom. One, faculty don’t know what it is, but they think they do. Two, we’ve got the political forces that are real. We have the fact that schools have always been apologists for the status quo. Schools have always advanced current ways of thinking, and the mediocre middle is what is encouraged. Those who are excelling beyond the mediocre middle, are going to have a very difficult time in schools, and those who are at that middle also are not getting what they deserve. So I won’t say that the schools are hopeless, but it appears to me right now that it’s very bad in this regard, because 30 years ago, at least, there was some sense that there was professional development in critical thinking needed. Now there is not a sense that professional development is needed. So that’s going backwards. So the term critical thinking, as you know, has gained in use, but not in currency. We can’t really use it because we don’t know what it is, but we say it repeatedly.

John: Now we’re living in an environment where we have, in our current administration, for example, people who seem to have very little respect for science and evidence or facts in general, and students are consuming that on their social media feeds and in their news feeds. And also, when we try giving students assignments that might help develop some of these skills, students read much less today than they ever have in the past, and surveys support that very strongly. And also, students are relying, to a greater extent, on AI-generated summaries and using AI to complete assignments. What can we do to try to push back against that to help students develop these skills?

Linda: Well, it’s not an easy question to answer, because artificial intelligence is such that it has taken away, to some extent, our ability as faculty to even give written assignments, and it hasn’t solved the problem for us. So we’re supposed to solve that problem. Artificial intelligence has created it, but we’re supposed to solve it. So in other words, I’m a faculty member. I’ve given an assignment. Artificial Intelligence gives the answer. I should be able to put that computer in my scanner or some such thing, and artificial intelligence will say, “Yes, this was stolen,” but it’s not doing that, so therefore we’re limited. Now, artificial intelligence is at a point where a lot of assignments [LAUGHTER] you give where it won’t give you a reasonable answer, but in other cases, it will. So for example, artificial intelligence, by the way, has stolen our theory, and we are fighting that legally right now. And if somebody asks artificial intelligence to do the logic of a problem like this, “What are the best ways to solve, let’s say, pollutions in the ocean?” Can be a question like that. What is the logic of it? That’s where we go back to the elements of reasoning. So “the logic of” means when you analyze it and you figure out the parts of that question. So first of all, artificial intelligence can give us that question very well articulated. Then it’s going to tell us the purpose. It’s going to give us the information needed. It’s going to give us the inferences that are reasonable. And it’s going to do that better than most people that I know, maybe anyone that I know, depending on the case. So the problem is there, and therefore, what’s a solution? Well, if you’re teaching online, it’s going to be very difficult, but if I were teaching in the classroom, then I would just require my students to write their papers right in front of me with a pen, and if they couldn’t, I mean, if they had some kind of disability, then I would have to watch over them while they were in my class. Now, critical thinking doesn’t take away our problems. It helps us face them and answer this, how is it that a student can go through 12 years of school but they still can’t actually interpret a paragraph accurately, and that’s many, if not most, students. So how many years did you go through it? You can’t blame that on artificial intelligence, not that you are, I’m just saying some things we can’t blame on artificial intelligence. And there are a lot of things we can do in the classroom to teach, stepping aside artificial intelligence, which we should have been doing all along, having the students read a book and discuss it with one another, have them write their papers and give feedback on their papers to each other. The problem is that, again, they can just generate the papers, that we have to address, and sometimes you just can’t address it.

Rebecca: Isn’t that annoying? [LAUGHTER]

John: It certainly is.

Linda: Well, I said the answer, the answer is for artificial intelligence to find the answer. [LAUGHTER] I don’t see why the burden is always on us critical thinkers, not that I think of myself or anyone as a critical thinker, per se, because we all think more or less critically, but I was using that as a class, so to speak. It’s interesting how many times we get questions like, “Well, how do you deal with the fact that we’re not allowing time for critical thinking in the classroom?” My answer is, “It’s not my fault. It’s the system that is deficient, that is so deficient that it won’t allow us to educate the mind, and if teachers are not learning what education is, if they don’t have a deep and rich conception of it, they’re not going to be able to foster it in the classroom.” But again, remember that politically, schools have never been designed to free the mind. They’ve never been designed to liberate the mind, certainly not K-12 schools and higher education is problematic now in multiple ways, because it’s also not doing much to free the mind, and we’re losing the humanities. We’re losing literature. This won’t do. We will have a renaissance in the humanities, because our survival will require it. We can’t just be Spartans, can’t just be technologists and fighters. I mean, we can, but then we will lose the culture that we built up as humans.

Rebecca: One of the things that our listeners are committed to is inclusive teaching. Can you talk a little bit about how critical thinking therapy engage with questions of identity, equity and cultural humility in the classroom, or just generally?

Linda: Well, first of all, remember, one of the intellectual standards is reasonability. If we were to foster critical thinking skills, abilities, and virtues in a significant way in human societies, we wouldn’t need diversity and inclusion programs. That would be happening by implication, and we would think more reasonably about them. A reason why we have presumably lost some of these is because… well, there are political reasons, we’ll set those aside, the people who just don’t want to include other people we’re going to set aside for this conversation, because those are people that are bigots, they’re prejudiced, they’re biased, and they’re not listening. They don’t want to hear this. Those people will always exist, and let’s hope that our listeners don’t want to be part of that group. But if you’re not willing to, say, hire someone that’s a different skin color from you, what does that tell us about you? If you’re not willing to hire someone who’s a different gender from you or seems to have an unusual orientation to gender, what does that tell us about you? And everyone is different. Every human is different. I think this idea that we’re classing ourselves either by gender or by race, so-called race, or in any other way that can also be problematic. I want to be included because I’m a human, but I want to be included also because you would want to include me. So we’re not including everyone. In other words, we’re including everyone, but we’re not including all behaviors. We don’t want all behaviors. We don’t want people who are in here bullying and abusing, you see. So what I’m saying is, so there have been problems with these inclusions and diversity programs, because they haven’t had the weight of criticality behind them, typically, and so they’ve been brought in in superficial ways which will never work and often will cause even more problems than you had to begin with. So if we start with theory of critical thinking, and so if I am taught, for example, that my mind sometimes will just be prejudiced against x, certain people, certain things. Why? Because it just means I’m prejudging. Why? Because I’m a human So, for example, most people think of men as more in an authoritative capacity than women. Even women think that. Now, why is that? Well, you might ask yourself, let’s say you’ve got five people talking, and four of them are women, and one of them is a man, and you notice that you keep looking at the man, you keep thinking he’s the ones going to know what he’s talking about. [LAUGHTER] Then you realize you’re prejudiced. You’re prejudging these women, because you have this assumption you’re using in your thinking. All of us are doing this, sometimes, in different ways. The question is, how am I doing it right now? And is it a problem? And is it causing me to behave in certain ways? I may think something for a few minutes, because someone, let’s say, looks unusual, and I feel myself, what is this? See, that’s the ego. And then you say, wait a minute, this is a person, just a little unusual. Linda, people think that of you, I’m sure. You see, you have to watch the workings of your mind. Watch the mind making these prejudicial moves. And if we’re going to have these diversity and inclusion programs, we’re going to have to get at the root of reasoning in these ways and show that it is our egocentric and sociocentric nature that will keep us from including and you have to want to see yourself not including someone that you should be including. And you should see yourself building someone up when maybe there’s not much evidence to build that person up. So I would say this, any program we bring into the schools at any level must have criticality at its heart if it’s going to succeed and not potentially cause problems, and that’s every program that has reasoning at its heart. So let me take you back in history, just as a quick example. Remember we have the history of the 1960s and the 1970s and remember that was going to be a revolutionary movement. And remember there were people up for free speech and black rights and women’s rights, and different groups were banding together for these rights and to get us out of wars, get us out of Vietnam. And all of that was culminating, and it resulted in certain positive change, but not nearly the positive change that was expected from it. And in many ways, we’ve regressed. And in some ways, the ideas have turned back on themselves, like take feminism. Feminism at its heart, is about equal rights. In other words, we’re not going to take any of your rights away based on gender. That’s the idea behind it. Doesn’t mean that women are better than men. It means equal rights for everyone, and we’re focusing on gender here specifically, but what has happened is that did largely occur. But then what else came with it? What else came with it was a lot of vulgar thinking about male-female relationships. What came with it was a lot of sexual harassment policies in the workplace, we have a situation in which the two of you, unless you’re married, you wouldn’t be just walking by and just accidentally or just for a couple minutes, touching the other person’s elbow or shoulder. “How are you doing today?” “How are things?” We can’t even touch one another anymore, it seems like because it will be, “oh, you’re in my space. You’re violating my rights,” and that’s not a good thing. We are sensual creatures. We’re not designed to be puritanical, but that’s what has taken root, and that’s jumped on board with feminism, which has resulted in vulgar feminism, which is not feminism. So we’re not trying to get away from all femininity. We’re not saying we can’t do any of that anymore. [LAUGHTER] See what I mean. So any issue that we are trying to think critically about, we’ve got to think through all of the complexities about. We’ve got to think through all of these complexities, and we can’t just have one blanket move that we make, and then everyone has got to abide by this, and the original intent is really lost in what comes after it. And let me say, the gay rights movement and alternate ways of thinking about gender movement, that served good purposes, but things also can turn the other way. So if you have a gay person walking up to a heterosexual person saying, “Well, what do you mean having babies? We don’t need any more on the planet. We don’t need any more of you people.” Well, that’s also problematic. So critical thinking is going to be required for every move that we make, and it’s going to mean that we’re going to be open to alternative ways of looking at life and alternative ways of living. And as long as people are not harming you and you’re not harming them, and everyone is getting along peacefully, then that’s a good thing. So we have to be careful, the policies that we raise our voices in support of, because we don’t know all the implications of what we’re supporting sometimes.

John: So far, we’ve talked quite a bit about critical thinking, but we haven’t yet discussed critical thinking therapy. Can you talk a bit about critical thinking therapy?

Linda: So what critical thinking therapy does is it brings to the field of therapy all of the tools of criticality that have been developed over the last decades and that are largely missing right now in a systematic way from the therapeutic scene. And by that I mean mental health therapy. And as I say in the book, when therapists begin to use this, because this is a brand new therapy. When they begin to use it, they’re going to see an immediate connection to critical thinking and cognitive behavioral therapeutic approaches. But I’m arguing that critical thinking therapy should not be subsumed underneath cognitive behavioral therapies, because cognitive behavioral therapies themselves are mixed in terms of quality. Those that are based in the work of Albert Ellis in rational emotive behavior therapy, beginning of the 1950s and moving forward, this will be among the best work that you’re going to find there in the CBT arena, so to speak. And much of what Ellis did and said, of course, directly dovetails with critical thinking therapy. But again, what is different is that I’ve taken all of the tools, and I’ve shown how if you take any of these tools seriously, you’re going to see application to your mental well being. So if I, for example, take intellectual autonomy, that was one that I mentioned before, the healthiest people mentally and emotionally are the people who are comfortable in themselves. They don’t need other people to tell them they’re okay. They’re not looking to be validated by anyone. They recognize that they need social interaction at some levels, but they need no one for their self confidence. But they also don’t have an inflated view of themselves. So they’re not out preaching to everyone else in terms of how to live. They are contributing to the common good when they can. They are taking care of themselves first, because you can’t help someone else if you are not whole yourself and they develop a voice of rationality that helps them achieve, again at the highest levels they’re capable of achieving within, and this means activating all of the will to achieve and to contribute that you can. And it means believing in the power of your own mind. So if you want to achieve at the highest levels, it’s your mind that is holding you back, or it is society that is holding you back, or it is other people who are holding you back, and sometimes we can’t escape certain things. We can’t escape societal rules and customs and laws to some degree. And some of the laws are good. We need traffic laws, apparently. So that’s a good thing, but there are a lot of laws we don’t need. And laws are added and added, and we have hundreds of thousands of laws upon us, and we are born into circles of ideas, of dogmas that are thrust upon us as children. We live our whole lives within, moving in and out of pathological ways of thinking on the part of systems, which are driven by humans, and we have to brush up against these. Sometimes people are thrust in them and in ways that they feel that they just cannot extricate themselves. And what I will say is that there are limitations, true, but there’s usually a lot more that we can do with our minds than that we are doing with our minds, and critical thinking therapy will help you find your own path and develop the capacity to achieve what you want to achieve, but you have to believe that you can. Again, critical thinking therapy will help you with that. So let me say that for anyone who is interested in developing their minds, and they have felt they’ve tried this and they’ve tried that, and this hasn’t worked, and that hasn’t worked, and they still haven’t achieved, this is the book for you, and I hope that you will use it and that you will let me know how it is working for you.

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

Linda: Well, what is next is for people to take critical thinking seriously. That is what is next. And you see, before 1980 we did not have the tools that we have now. Richard Paul really began to develop them starting in the 1960s. They came to fruition by the 1980s. We’ve had these theories since then, which should have already permeated education in the United States, but instead, schools, colleges, and universities have continued to slap dash at it and not take it seriously. So what is next is for all of us to take our minds more seriously through the tools of criticality. And I would argue as well that what we need is to establish a field of criticology, the logic of criticality, the logic of critical thinking. Critical thinking needs its own field, so that it’s not going to be owned and operated by, in essence, imposters, people who are not studying theory of critical thinking but are pretending that they’re experts. So this is what is next. [LAUGHTER] Thank you [LAUGHTER] for the question.

John: Well, thank you. I think we can all agree that there’s a need for more critical thinking, and your book is a nice addition to the literature out there.

Rebecca: Thanks for sharing a lot of things for us to critically think about moving forward. [LAUGHTER]

Linda: Thank you for having me. I hope that this has helped people who are interested in both critical thinking and critical thinking therapy understand a little bit more about both of these.

[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]

402. Preparing for Title II

Updates to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations require public colleges to increase their efforts to ensure that digital content meets accessibility standards. In this episode, Sean Moriarty joins us to discuss strategies to foster a culture of access across an institution. Sean is the Chief Technology Officer at SUNY Oswego. Sean and Rebecca have worked collaboratively on digital accessibility initiatives at SUNY Oswego since 2017

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Updates to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations require public colleges to increase their efforts to ensure that digital content meets accessibility standards. In this episode, we discuss strategies to foster a culture of access across an institution.

[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 Sean Moriarty. Sean is the Chief Technology Officer at SUNY Oswego. In this role, Sean provides leadership for the continued development of a client-centered, agile, robust, accessible, and secure digital campus environment that advances the university’s strategic goals. Sean and Rebecca have worked collaboratively on digital accessibility initiatives at SUNY Oswego since 2017. Welcome back, Sean.

Sean: Well, thanks a lot. It’s good to be back with you two.

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

Sean: I am. I am having an Irish Breakfast tea.

Rebecca: I almost drank that knowing that you were probably drinking that. [LAUGHTER]

Sean: Yes.

John: And I am drinking a pure peppermint tea today.

Rebecca: And no fear, I’ve got English breakfast. [LAUGHTER] Got the British Isles represented.

John: So in January of 2019, we had you on to talk about SUNY Oswego’s work to build a culture of accessibility. And five years later, in January of 2024, members of SUNY Oswego’s workgroup on accessibility practices joined us to talk about one of our initiatives, the 10-day accessibility challenge. And several weeks ago, we had Mark Greenfield on the podcast to talk about the recent updates to Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (or ADA). Today, we’re planning to follow up on those earlier conversations and talk about some of the practical steps that SUNY Oswego is taking to address Title II. Meeting the requirements of Title II can seem pretty daunting if a campus hasn’t been actively engaged in digital accessibility practices. So where does a campus start, what were the first steps that SUNY Oswego took to address digital accessibility?

Sean: So first of all, thanks for inviting me back again. It’s always good to talk to you two. You mentioned that I was on in 2019 which does seem like a lifetime ago when you think of it being six years ago, but also the pandemic happened in between, and this really brought, I think, a whole new vision and awareness around digital accessibility and the role that it had in terms of helping students to navigate the teaching and learning that we went through during that period of time. And I think the work that we’ve done beforehand really paid off during the pandemic, and I think the work that we continue to do really helps with students. But if we go back to your question like, where do you start with something like this? The way that we have approached it here at Oswego is that the responsibility for creating accessible content falls to the people making accessible content. When we first had our OCR complaint, in 2017 that was, we saw just really how deep the hole was in terms of the content that we were creating and the requirements to go in to make it all accessible. So I think the way that we’ve gone and really done it is to focus on educating people on how to create accessible content and making them aware of their responsibility in terms of doing it, and trying to simplify the process as much as we can for everyone as we went forward.

Rebecca: I think one of the key things that we focused on was building a coalition of folks who wanted to build the momentum around digital accessibility. So prior to the OCR complaint, there was through our Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, we had a work group on accessibility practices that had representation of constituents across campus that has greatly grown over time. And so now there’s representation from many units and now faculty, et cetera, that does a lot of the professional development on our campus around digital accessibility. But around the OCR complaint, Sean also formulated the digital accessibility steering committee, and now those two groups are connected.

Sean: When we first had the OCR complaint, we really focused on the website in particular and having it reach standards. And I’ll just say we were one of 31 SUNY schools out of the 32 that had complaints against it. So everyone was going through the same thing at the same time, but once we went and got the website up to standard, we realized that it’s an ongoing task in terms of going and keeping it that way. So really, we got the group together, that started with our web services team and also included Accessibility Services. And Rebecca was a partner, certainly, in all this work, and Rebecca has a unique skill set in the sense that she teaches graphic design and teaches web services, but she also happened to be working with you at the time, John, right in our Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. So it really helped that we could go and integrate these teams together and to bring the work that we were trying to do and expand the scope as we went forward. Another important component, I think, of it, was how we went and integrated faculty inside what we were trying to do. And started with our first accessibility fellows… in 2019 I think that was. And our goal was really just to have someone from each of the different colleges to be a part of the team and kind of look at accessibility, particularly in their discipline, learn about how to use it, and then act as an advocate inside their area of expertise. But actually the first year, we had seven people step forward, and that was a good investment, I think, in terms of going and working with those people. The next year was 2020, and we had four people. And when the pandemic hit, by that point, really, we had 11 people who had gone through accessibility training and were really ready to step in and really acted as advocates and helped all the people inside their departments to go and to navigate what lay ahead as we went through the pandemic and our shift to online learning as it was for months and months to come.

Rebecca: I think if we were to talk about what we’d recommend for other campuses to do to start, it’s really to start with the coalition of the willing, or the folks that are most likely to advocate for digital accessibility, or might be in adjacent spaces focused on equity issues, for example, and to find representation across campus. So we have folks from the library, instructional designers, the teaching center, faculty. We have folks in Disability Services, folks in our student affairs unit as well, that are doing a wide variety of work and can act as a liaison in all those different areas to transform the practices of folks on campus. And I think that strategy has served us well.

Sean: Yes, for sure. And I think also, as we get more people involved, more people look and see other areas that we should involve as we move forward. And I know Rebecca has done a lot of work, and the people in the work group in areas such as orientation and how we bring students in. We also have the person who runs Slate on our campus, which is our enrollment application, that we go and interact with students as they apply to college, and then get information back and forth. But he was a graphic design graduate of our school, and was a student of Rebecca’s at one point, and he’s been able to go in to implement all of the same principles and really go to bring this kind of technology and this way of thinking to the way that we work on campus, and bring students in.

John: Just to clarify one thing… earlier, you mentioned an OCR complaint, and just to make sure everyone is on the same page with us, by OCR, you are referring to…

Sean: Yeah.

John: …the Office of Civil Rights.

Sean: That’s correct, John, yep.

Rebecca: …and then the Department of Education.

Sean: Yes, and actually, and just to go back to that, in 2017, over 2000 universities had OCR complaints against them, particularly around the website, and a number of them were in SUNY as well.

John: So, now, as we’re coming up to the April 2026, or ‘27 for small communities, compliance deadline, what are some of the concrete steps that are being taken to ensure that all digital content, web content, and digital apps, including those created by faculty, staff and students, will meet the WCAG 2.1 AA standards by that time.

Rebecca: So one of our strategies is actually to use the current WCAG standards, which are actually WCAG 2.2 double A in part because they include some important guidelines around mobile technology. So we’re always gonna adopt the most current WCAG standards, so that we’re always ahead of things, rather than adopting an older, outdated set of guidelines. [LAUGHTER] And so we have a Title II plan that we’ve worked on collaboratively that has essentially four components. The first is raising awareness and making sure folks know what we mean by digital accessibility, so defining that, and then also what Title II is, developing a professional development strategy, which we can talk about, and implementing policy and procedures, especially around procurement, and then finally, making sure that we have an assessment strategy and have a way for folks to evaluate their own progress and know where they stand, so using accessibility checkers and things like that.

John: So you mentioned these four steps. Could you elaborate on this a little bit?

Sean: So we’ve really tried to think of it in these four steps. The first one is raising awareness. And we’ve really been focusing, and actually, the way that Rebecca and I have got the plan here, and the steering committee of the plan it’s like a component for each season, although we will continue on with many components as these seasons progress. So awareness, we’ve spent a lot of time this past semester and during spring of 2025 focusing on awareness, making people understand what Title II is. We call it digital accessibility in our campus because we’ve really focused on having the digital campus as a core component of the way that we deliver education here at Oswego. The second component, that we’ll work on over the summer, is preparing policy and procedures, procurement is going to be a large component, I think, as we move forward, and I know we’ll talk more about that later. But we want to go and focus and make sure that we’re ready to move forward once we hit September again. Then we’re also preparing training and being aware of how we’re going to go and develop people as we move forward once we hit the ground in the fall when school returns. And then there’s the assessment feedback, and I know Rebecca just touched on the point, we want to be able to give people feedback so that they understand, if they’re creating accessible content, how to make it better, and whether it’s inside Word, inside the Brightspace environment, or the digital learning environment, or whether it’s on the web, people should be getting feedback and understanding if they’ve created and posted accessible digital content for others.

Rebecca: One of the strategies that we’re using for professional development, which might be of particular use for this audience, is organizing around content types, so everyone on campus is a content creator of some sort, whether you’re creating emails or documents, presentations, et cetera. And so the professional development that we’re doing is largely around these kind of content types that might have slightly different skill sets necessary to make those types of content. So we have email, documents, slide decks, multimedia, charts and tables, forms, social media, kind of page layout and design, folks that are using the learning management system, and how to navigate that and make sure things in that system are accessible. And then folks that are editing content on the front end of the website, as well as those that are doing more of programming or development on web or software applications.

Sean: Well, I think what’s interesting too is that the way that people create content really isn’t necessarily role based in terms of what we’re doing. One item that we really haven’t mentioned up to this point around Title II is how it affects students and how students will be required to create accessible content as well. We’ve really thought of this in a couple of ways. There’s what happens inside the classroom, and faculty can be responsible for that, but there’s also the clubs and how they have students interact with one another, and the social media, different technologies that they integrate too. So as we have this content type of training, if you’re doing social media, you could be in marketing communications, or you could be running the fencing club at school, and you’re going to need to have this kind of training and awareness to go and to be responsible. So the training will be good for both of those groups of people, and it really cuts across where you are in the organization.

John: Remediating materials created by an entire institution would seem to be pretty much an impossible task, requiring a tremendous staff, unless perhaps individuals are charged with that responsibility. So what ongoing professional development and training opportunities are being provided to faculty and staff to create accessible content effectively, beyond that initial awareness and beyond those initial departments that were reached by the accessibility fellows.

Sean: You’re right. I think, in that remediation, the quantity of work makes it impossible, which is why we took the attitude about six years ago, that we’re going to go on a step-forward basis, and this is where we’re at and we’re going to start creating as much accessible content as we can. And we really started by investing in training for our staff and our trainers. If I go back to 2018 and ‘19, and that would have meant sending people out to the WebAIM training out in Utah, which was a great investment, I think, for our staff and for their awareness, and they were able to go and to bring that kind of training back and start our own programs. But then we started a series of other kinds of trainings, which would include our CELT breakouts for our Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, where we would go and focus on different accessibility items. We already talked about the Faculty Fellows in terms of going and helping them with their training. And we have created a lot of on-demand training, whether it be on our accessibility website, and utilization of Deque.

Rebecca: So, Deque is Deque University, which is an online training platform. You can get subscriptions too. So the SUNY system has a subscription to Deque University, and that provides really great opportunities to learn about specific software. So if you wanted to learn digital accessibility skills in the Microsoft suite, the Google Suite, or web platforms, etc, so everyone has access to that on our campus. We’ve also developed a Brightspace course called Access: a Quest Toward Inclusion, that we’re rolling out on our campus. We’ve done a couple pilots, and that’s fully rolled out as we speak right now in the summer. And in that course, not only do we have some technical skills, but also conceptual ideas around how digital accessibility fits into ideas of inclusive pedagogy, diversity, equity, and inclusion, student success, et cetera, so that it helps connect those pieces and how digital accessibility also dovetails with UDL and some of these other strategies. That course is built upon an earlier experiment that we had on our campus called the 10-day accessibility challenge, which we rolled out in January of 2021 to support faculty as they were teaching online during COVID, and that we have a whole podcast on.

John: We’ll include a link to the earlier podcast discussions of that program and of other related topics. How many faculty fellows have been through training?

Sean: At this point, we’ve had 24 faculty who have gone through the fellowship training.

John: And you mentioned workshops, and those are generally taking place at least twice a year. And there’s probably eight to 10 workshops at least twice a year on all these topics.

Sean: Yes, and actually we focus on accessibility for a couple days in the January winter breakouts and training sessions that you have, which would be the time where we bring in the new accessibility fellows, and they go through specialized training. But the training is really available to everyone on campus. And, like I said, we really focus on that for a couple days.

John: So this is a pretty big task that you’re discussing here. And how did you effectively secure commitment from campus leadership to allocate those initial resources: the human, the financial and the time allocation for digital accessibility, especially when many on campus might not fully understand the urgency or the scope of moving to digital accessibility.

Sean: So when I think of the commitment, I think the OCR complaint really opened people’s eyes. And it raised awareness in terms of what was required to go in to do digital accessibility properly, and we’ve really looked at it from two components: one is how it ties to our mission in terms of student success, equity, fairness, and the second component of it is the risk and risk mitigation in terms of how, if you’re not going and doing this stuff, you might get sued. So I think both of those items really talk to two different components of the university. So around financial components, they’re really interested in mitigating the risk, and they can see where doing this work will go and avoid any lawsuits that we might have. But I think from the classroom side and academic side, we really want to go and focus on why this ties into the mission, and how we can go and really serve the students. There’s a second component, I’ll say, in terms of how we go and secure commitment. So the leadership is one component of it, but I would also say there is this component on campus that really believes in it and will go and do the work required around it. So when I think of Rebecca and her team and the instructional designers that she’s worked with, and really other people inside CTS, and then the faculty that we’ve dealt with, they’re committed to going and doing it and providing a structure and a framework for them to, in essence, either have extra service pay or to have time cut out of their schedule to go and to do it, was a wise investment, and showed that the university really was serious in terms of what we’re doing, and that’s what we offer for the faculty fellows, in terms of the structure around going and supporting it.

Rebecca: I think one thing that Sean’s not directly addressing is his pivotal role in all of this, and someone in his position, and getting someone who is a chief technology officer, a chief information officer, really on board is really integral to getting this work done. So we were doing a lot of ad hoc stuff in the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching through our work group, which was kind of a grassroots group that was just doing the work because we were passionate about it and thought it was important for our community to be a part of, but when we brought the need to bring this work into the classrooms, beyond just the website, which is what the OCR complaint was about, initially, Sean was really collaborative and wanted to work with us and provide resources and advocate for resources, and so that digital accessibility steering committee that we mentioned at the top of the show has become really integral as a space to discuss critical issues, to prioritize things that might need to be funded or advocated for, so that the work here can get done. So, for example, we use Google on our campus, and the Google platform doesn’t have built-in accessibility checkers. So one of the things that the work group brought to the steering committee was the need to invest in a checker. So we invested in grackle so that we have an accessibility checker for folks that are using Google Docs and Google Slides, et cetera. So that platform has been really important for fellows and for our work group to raise issues, and then for that steering committee to make some decisions about priorities, and then Sean’s task is that to advocate for that and either fund it through his budget or request funds elsewhere. [LAUGHTER]

Sean: Yeah. Well, I think when we have put forward a budget and we have money set aside, I would think for our accessibility initiatives, it’s less than you would think would be necessary. But I think when we think of what’s required, it is this investment in people and then in the technology to go and to make the work easy, and then it’s also in time. You wouldn’t underestimate the amount of time that’s needed to go and to provide for people to go and to get on training. When I think back to the time when we did the 10-day challenge and thinking these things through, I mean, first of all, they were a lot of fun to go and to do, but we also gained a lot in terms of going and moving our initiative forward as we went and invested. So the time is an important component, but it really comes down to prioritization. When I think back to the last few years, IT departments… when I think of how we can go and be involved in the diversity and the equity and the inclusion and the items that we were working on at the time… this was really a key component, I think, and one of our major contributions to going and helping largely around the equity that we provided to the students and really focused in on student success. So I think the initiatives really went hand in hand with what we were trying to accomplish.

Rebecca: Building in the 10-day accessibility challenge and our Access: a Quest Towards Inclusion Course, are really helpful because they provide scaffolded and structured learning, so that complements the on-demand resources that we also have available. So departments have advocated for their constituents to participate in these challenges or in the course, and that means that they’re prioritizing or allocating time to do that work, which I think is helpful.

John: You mentioned the issue of Google not providing the tools that are needed to help check accessibility, there’s also a lot of other software that’s being used on campus from third parties. Can you talk a little bit about how procurement strategies might have to change here and at other institutions in response to the need to make sure that mobile apps that students are asked to use are accessible?

Sean: Yeah, I think this is a large component, and I would say, for us, kind of the next frontier in terms of going and figuring out how we’re going to do it. So I think what makes it difficult is the testing that you need to do on the software that you’re looking to go and buy. And reading the VPATs and the ACRs, which are the accessibility compliance reports that software developers are supposed to provide you when you purchase software. So it takes a certain skill set to be able to go in to do that, and that skillset’s highly in demand and is difficult to go and to teach, but I think this is an area that we’ll focus on over the next year. So when I talked about policy before, it was around developing this software acquisition policy and procedure that we’ll go and integrate and for us, it’ll include all of the security work that we’re doing, and it’ll also include the accessibility and compliance checking that we’re looking to be able to provide to software end users.

Rebecca: One thing that we don’t always think about when we’re considering third parties is third-party content that we might be getting from publishers or PDFs from library databases and things like that. So those are all materials that we’re using for teaching and learning that are coming from third parties that do need to be evaluated, that maybe traditionally, we’re not attending to in that way, that we really need to build into our practices. So often we think about procurement as something that we’re spending money on, but it also, in the way that we’re thinking about it means that anything that we’re acquiring to share with others. So that may not cost money, but we still need to test it.

Sean: Yeah, it’s a skill set that we’ll really need to go and develop, but it really is necessary to ensure compliance.

John: Might this become a little bit easier, though now as third-party platforms are threatened with the loss of sales, as all public institutions are required to meet these accessibility requirements as we move forward?

Sean: I certainly hope so. There’s also a law in New York State that software developers need to provide software that’s compliant with what we’re looking for around the accessibility. I will say, though, that building software is kind of like steering a large ocean liner, and depending on where people are, it can be difficult for them to go and to change where they’re going. So I think I would certainly see this in the future, but we’re not there now, for sure.

Rebecca: But as universities kind of band together and put the pressure on I think we will see this change over time.

John: And one of the nice things about being part of a system is some of the work can be shared across institutions. And I believe there are some efforts to do that across institutions in the SUNY system.

Sean: Yes, I would say inside SUNY we’ve really worked together, and I give SUNY System Administration a lot of credit for prioritizing this, and they have a core group of people that have really prioritized it, and Rebecca and I have worked with those people, and they’ve really moved us forward a large amount. An example would be the Deque University training systems that are available. But there’s also other examples of where there’s a lot of training that’s provided by our Center for Professional Development, and they’ve really taken on items such as Universal Design for Learning and provided many opportunities for faculty to go and to incorporate those practices inside the classroom for themselves. I’ll also add that they’ve started a new program this year on accessibility advocates and allies that Rebecca is leading this year, and it’s really to go in to take our accessibility fellowship program, and there’s 11 accessibility and advocate ally fellows this year, and they’re working and seeing how they can go and further the work on their campuses to get these core groups working together and move the needle forward around accessibility.

John: Traditionally, when working with students or faculty with disabilities, much of this was handled by campus disability offices, where the focus had been historically on providing accommodations. We’ve been moving towards, and Title II is certainly going to reinforce, a shift from providing reactive accommodations to a proactive inclusive design model. So this is something we’ve been doing for a while, but what strategies have you found to be most effective in fostering a campus-wide culture of accessibility, especially for those who might be somewhat new to digital accessibility.

Rebecca: I think that depends a little bit on the audience. So for administrators and decision makers, helping those individuals see how this work ties to the mission is really core and critical. When we’re talking about faculty, we can integrate that work into other things that we’re talking about in teaching centers, like inclusive pedagogy, evidence-based practices, Universal Design for Learning, all of those things, with accessibility also support student success. And then, if we’re talking about student affairs folks, who really focus on the students, the whole student… when we’re thinking about student success… that’s also a way to tie this accessibility work into the mission and goals of their division as well. So I think tying it to what people are already doing and what they already care about is really critical in shifting the culture of access for sure.

Sean: So you did mention, historically, when this work is done reactively, it all falls to like, Disability Services or Accessibility Services, but I’ll just say that those people are still integrated into the work that we’re doing, and are key parts of our coalition, I would say, and of who we’re working with to go and to focus on the student service, but we have spent a lot of time really going and developing this coalition and looking at the different roles and responsibilities that each people has. And really, Rebecca and I have tried to go and develop a model in terms of how we go and look at this work and what we’re trying to do and how we move it forward. And we use an acronym called RAMPS, which is really a key set of tactics we have developed to cultivate a culture of access.

Rebecca: So RAMPS stands for request, amplify, model, prioritize, and support. And you might wonder why RAMPS? Well, we associate ramps with kind of the sloping planes that you might use to access a building. You’re on wheels, for example. So it’s already tied to the land of accessibility. So we were hoping that would make it a little more memorable. And then, in addition, the word ramp can be used as a verb, meaning to speed up or expand or increase quickly. And so we see this as a set of tactics that really can accelerate this culture of access. And so if we want to dig into each of the tactics in a little bit more detail, requests specifically means requesting colleagues, peers and others to use a specific accessibility practice, so use a microphone or captions or something like that. Amplify or amplify voices and perspectives of people with disabilities, this can look like raising your hand in a meeting and asking what kinds of accessibility features might be built into a particular event or software or other platform. Model is model best practices in your everyday work. So things like, every time you create a document, you’re running your accessibility checker, you’re using alt text and those kinds of things, so that people see that you care about it because you’re doing it. This is particularly important for leadership to do. Prioritize, is prioritize accessibility by allocating resources, and by resources, we mean time, funds, and personnel, and then support… support others in their accessibility journey through coaching, education, processes, and procedures, and so this can look like a wide variety of things, but making sure that as people want to develop in the space of digital accessibility, you’re helping support their technical skills, but also developing their workflows and other things where they might face a few hiccups along the way.

John: So could you provide some other examples of how administrators, faculty, staff and students can employ RAMPS tactics to help advance accessibility.

Sean: Yeah, so when I think of administrators, whether it be the presidents, provosts, vice presidents, deans, directors, and so on down the line, we’ve gone and developed a list of tactics. So, as an example, request units to review their policies and procedures to ensure they’re meeting the legal requirements, but looking around what they’re doing around accessibility and the content, amplify the why of accessibility practices, and I think that’s really an important component in terms of how it ties to the mission, because people often see it as more work than just putting material out, but remediating is way more work than it is to go and do it right the first time. Model, model accessibility practices on correspondence and particularly presentations that go out from your office. When we think of prioritize, I think of team time for professional development and the resources that are required, and support that would be through appropriate budget and resources that can be provided for these types of projects. I see the responsibility of CIOs, and what we do, and really around prioritizing Title II initiatives by ensuring availability of accessibility tools, ensuring that there’s professional training and support available, and ensuring accessible procurement practices are developed and implemented, and then support by really partnering with the other people on campus to ensure that we’re producing the results that we’re looking to produce.

Rebecca: We think about instructors and the role that instructors play, the tactics might look different in those settings. So for example, instructors can request that students follow accessibility guidelines like the WCAG 2.2 double A standard, just like they might APA or MLA style guides, and so that could be something that’s a graded component.

John: We could always hope that they do better with that than they do with the citation styles.

Rebecca: True, [LAUGHTER] but reinforcing it with grades or as a rubric component is helpful. We can also model using accessibility checkers, not only by checking our own work, but showing students how to do that as well. One way that instructors can prioritize this work is by participating in professional development related to Universal Design for Learning or UDL and accessibility.

John: So, what metrics do we use here, and what metrics might other campuses perhaps consider in monitoring the progress of meeting accessibility practices.

Sean: So, when I look at it from the technical point of view, I look at ensuring that we’re gathering these metrics and being able to provide people feedback. So we use tools such as ALLY, and we also use SiteImprove. So ALLY would be inside the learning management system. SiteImprove is an application that will go and browse your website and let you know what the accessibility content is and where there might be areas that need to be improved. And then we’re able to go and provide that feedback back to people so they can understand what they’re doing. We also look at people that are requesting accessibility workshops, people speaking up about microphones and using microphones or other accessibility practices. I’ll also say that we’ve really tried to focus on understanding where we’re at, and we’re going to move forward at the fastest pace we can but this is really when you go and develop culture, it’s really difficult to go and to leapfrog from one stage to another. You really just make progress by making steady progress and by doing the work that’s there. So we just focus on getting better each semester.

Rebecca: Yeah, some of the stuff that we’ve done includes analyzing some of our ALLY data to see whether or not the fellows have made an impact in their departments, to see if that’s improved their ALLY scores, and it has. So that’s exciting. It means that that’s a worthwhile investment. Sometimes it’s these really specific metrics where there’s scores, but when you’re really looking at culture change, some of the things that you actually observe are spaces like our Faculty Assembly, where maybe one person, often me in the past, would be the person saying, like, “Please use a microphone. Please do this. Please do that.” And now I don’t have to say anything. And there’s many other people who will speak up in these settings to request certain accessibility features be used in a wide variety of settings, and I’ve seen students, faculty, and staff, all make these kinds of requests in public settings. So that’s real advocacy work that’s happening, and is a real difference from where we started.

Sean: Well, I also think of people who have come to training, and when you think of culture like we have people in events that have come to our accessibility training and trying to understand better. The people running the orientation are really trying to go and ensure that they’re creating accessible content to provide to the students. So sometimes we’ve recruited those people, other times they’ve been recruited by others who are part of the culture, I guess I would say. So, I think when you see how it’s grown organically, in that sense, it’s really satisfying.

Rebecca: I think along those same lines, we can see a wider variety of individuals offering workshops during our Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching’s breakout sessions in the spring and in the winter, and that just demonstrates how many more people are deeply engaged with the subject matter compared to previously.

John: So one of the things that really struck me was the comment about using microphones. It’s still an issue. We ran an AI symposium yesterday, and we had a number of people attending remotely, and some people in the back of the room said, “Well, my voice is loud enough so anyone can hear” and sometimes faculty in large classes will still do that. And it is important to get that reminder out that while people who are near you certainly will hear you, the people who are further away or who have hearing impairment won’t, and there’s a lot of people with hearing impairment who do not necessarily reveal that.

Sean: Yeah, it’s a real issue. Actually, one of the things I’m proud of, too, is how we’ve really worked to go at big events such as graduation and commencement, which we just hosted and brought in an application that’ll go and provide real-time translation of what the speaker is saying for people in the audience, and we post that on a QR code, both in the program and on the screen beforehand, so that people can hear and understand what the speakers are saying. And when you have an audience of over 4000 people, there’s going to be a lot of people who have hearing impairments who really will benefit from that kind of service that you’re providing.

John: So what do you see as some of the biggest challenges that institutions must face in meeting this Title II deadline? I know we’ve done a lot here, but a lot of campuses are much further behind.

Rebecca: I think even though we’ve made a lot of progress here, we still have challenges that we’re going to face, and one of them, and I think this is true across most of higher ed, is student-generated content has not traditionally been a focus. So this is really when students are sharing work with each other. Previously, we’ve certainly focused on things when they share it more publicly, [LAUGHTER] but they’re sharing it with each other in the class. That’s going to be something that instructors need to think about and may need to become integrated into our learning objectives through general education or some other spaces to reinforce learning some of those skills.

John: And that’s something that can be sold to students as a useful skill in that as more and more companies start moving towards making their digital content more accessible, there’s going to be a lot of employment possibilities there.

Rebecca: I know it’s been a great benefit to a lot of my former students. [LAUGHTER] Some disciplines also have specific challenges that we need to really come up with better strategies for. Some of this work is starting and is there, but it’s not streamlined. Some software packages just don’t have accessibility features built into them. So there’s workflows and habits that need to change, and changing habits and workflows and anything you’re used to is difficult, and people, by their very nature resist change often. So that’s something that all institutions are going to have to work with and address. And I would say, in particular disciplines with notation, so things like math, chemistry, music, all have some unique specific challenges. Or if you think about disciplines like art history that are heavily image based, and thinking about how alt text might need to shift depending on why you’re analyzing a particular image in a course, sometimes it might be more esthetic, sometimes it might be more important to be a more poetic alt text to fit the needs. And so education around some of those really unique features of disciplines is something that we just really need to work together on across institutions.

Sean: I’ll also add, I think procurement is going to be difficult for many colleges in terms of going and having the skill set, which I mentioned before, and also a lot of schools will have problems with resources in terms of training, in terms of having people to go and to train, and depending on where you’re starting from, I can certainly see it being a challenge. It’s an advantage to us to be in a system so that we can go and aggregate some of our resources together. But I can understand how it’s difficult for many of the colleges to go.

Rebecca: I would also add, though, that although these are challenges, these aren’t insurmountable things, these are all solvable problems, but it might need some collaboration and changes of processes to make it happen.

John: Well, we’ve addressed a lot of issues related to movement to meet the Title II requirements. We always end, though, with the question: “What’s next?”

Sean: So I think the first item is, like the game is afoot now, it’s time to execute on the next components of our strategy, which is around training for the content providers at Oswego, and focusing on meeting people where they’re at in terms of going and both offering the training and in terms of going and upskilling them as we move forward. And I think the second component is to invoke the student clubs in the equation and the students as we move forward, and partner with them to help ensure that they make the requirements and take responsibility for their social postings or documents, as well as integrating where it fits into the academic side of the campus. And I think really, one of the third parts is not to look at April 2026 as like this magic day when the project is over. It’s just another day, another milestone, we’ll l not be 100% perfect at that point, and it’s just a continuing project that will go on for years to come, I would think, and to make sure that we have a solid base to constantly be building on, so it becomes less work for people to go in and do, and it makes it easier for them to integrate into their workflows.

Rebecca: I think one ongoing thing to remember moving forward is that accessibility is not an on off switch. So we need to remember that there’s continuous improvement, and we can always work as technology develops to make things more accessible and to keep reevaluating where we’re at so that we can make those improvements.

Sean: I’m going to add one more component that’s what next, and it is our integration of the AI Fellows that we have on campus. So we started an AI Fellow program early this year, but I see the AI Fellows and the Accessibility Fellows integrating their work in the coming year, and to see how that can really go and help us to move this forward. That might be an area that can help us to leapfrog some of our actions forward and our ability to create accessible content.

John: And I did just see an article about several campuses introducing AI tools to read the names of students during graduation, which might actually sometimes give better pronunciations than some of the readers might otherwise, although we’ve had some very good readers here on our campus.

Sean: Yeah, AI is going to have an impact everywhere. So I’d look at where the intersection of these two areas is for sure.

John: And we’ve had a few podcasts where people have discussed how AI tools may help meet accessibility and UDL requirements, and we’ll share links to some of those in the show notes as well.

[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]

399. Improving Course Design Using AI

Generative AI can increase efficiency and support student learning, however students can also use it as a substitute for learning. In this episode, Nathan Pritts joins us to discuss ways in which generative AI tools can improve course design and strategies to encourage students to use AI tools ethically and responsibly.  Nathan Pritts is a Professor and Program chair for First-Year Writing at the University of Arizona Global Campus. Nathan’s recent work has been focused on the relationship between AI and human teaching.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Generative AI can increase efficiency and support student learning, however students can also use it as a substitute for learning. In this episode, we explore ways generative AI tools can improve course design and ways to encourage students to use AI tools ethically and responsibly.

[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 Nathan Pritts. He is a Professor and Program chair for First-Year Writing at the University of Arizona Global Campus. Nathan’s recent work has been focused on the relationship between AI and human teaching. Welcome Nate.

John: Thanks for having me, Rebecca, John.

John: Good to talk to you. Our teas today are:…? Nate, are you drinking tea by any chance?

Nate: I am indeed. I’ve got this Paris tea by Harney and Sons. It’s a fruity black tea with bergamot oil. It’s very nice.

John: We have some of that in our office. It’s a favorite of the current Associate Director of the teaching center here. So we keep that stock pretty regularly. And Rebecca?

Rebecca: I have Golden Monkey today, John.

John: Is it golden?

Rebecca: It has golden tips, yes.

John: Okay. And it’s a black tea?

Rebecca: And it’s good. It’s a black tea.

John: Was it one of the monkey-picked teas?

Rebecca: I don’t know. Maybe it was AI picked. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I have a spring cherry green tea. One of your favorites.

Rebecca: Oh, yeah, definitely my favorite, with those cherries.

Nate: Nice. [LAUGHTER]

John: It’s an ongoing thing.

Rebecca: Yeah, I hate it. [LAUGHTER] Oh, okay, you actually don’t like it.

Nate: No, I actually super hate it. [LAUGHTER]

John: I did end up with a couple of bags of whole leaf tea because she bought some because it smelled so nice.

Rebecca: It smells so good, but I just cannot stand the taste of it.

Nate: Easy to get taken in by some of these.

Rebecca: It’s true, the wafts are so good. [LAUGHTER] Alright, well, we invited you here today not to discuss tea but [LAUGHTER] the impact of AI on the design of online courses. In your March 19, 2025 article in Faculty Focus you discuss some of the ways AI tools can be helpful in augmenting our work while still maintaining human connection in our courses. [LAUGHTER] Can you describe some of the ways in which AI can help us create more effective courses?

Nate: I can talk about some of the ways that have worked for me. I mean, I think one of the things to realize in course design, some faculty will have a lot of people supporting them. They’ll have colleagues to bounce ideas around with, but at other times, a subject matter expert won’t have anybody there to support their build. And I feel like that’s where AI can really help support the course development. It sort of works as just another pair of eyes on the work that the faculty member is doing. It works to bounce ideas around. And I feel like there are some very targeted ways that that can come into play. Always, I’m trying to think about AI as a support for the human intuition, the human experience, what we bring to the table. Ethan Mollick, who’s a pretty well known AI researcher, talks about the human in the loop, which is the person who’s helping AI accomplish goals. I like to think of it the other way around, as having an AI in my pocket. So I’m the human. I’m always going to be the human doing the work, but I can turn to an AI tool to help me do things that I might not be able to conceptualize myself. I kind of break curriculum work down into two different categories. This is kind of what we came up with internally to help us think about some of the different ways that AI can support course design to make effective courses. We think of them in terms of accelerators. That is an AI that’s basically helping a faculty member get started, move faster, maybe streamline some of the processes. A faculty member is staring at a blank page, an accelerator might help them. We’ve developed some prompts that will do that. But then there’s also what we think of as multipliers. This is basically to help enhance the quality of the work that the human, the SME, the faculty member, might have already come up with. And that’s what that article, Rebecca, that you referred to, that’s what that really talks about. The stress tester for assignments is basically a multiplier. It’s assuming that a faculty member would have developed on their own an assignment for a particular class. And then will use AI to essentially test it, run it through some battery of tests just to see if there are ways to improve it. One of the ways AI can do that in this particular case is that it can simulate student perspectives. So you can feed the assignment that you developed, or the discussion prompt, whatever it might be, into AI, and you can ask it to simulate a variety of student responses. And you can give it some parameters. You can say, I want some A level responses. I want some C level responses. You can ask it to mimic what your student population might be if you’re teaching first year versus if you’re teaching graduate level. And I think that can kind of help to show maybe where the prompt could be strengthened, maybe students might misinterpret a particular aspect of it, or maybe they struggle with some part of it. We’ve all had that experience where we develop an assignment, we give it to students, and they just find ways to break it right out of the gate. We never thought to tell them not to do a certain thing, or we didn’t make it as clear as we needed to. This gives us an opportunity, working with AI to potentially catch those stumbling blocks before we put it in front of students. So we refine the prompt, we find blind spots, and hopefully this is a way of making that assignment prompt that we’ve developed a little bit more ready for the wild. And let me just say I get that an AI-simulated response to a prompt is very different from what a student is going to say. Students are going to find new and exciting ways to respond to our prompts. The AI doesn’t work like that, but if we ask it to generate, say 50, say 100 responses to a prompt, don’t share them with me, just generate them and then thematically, tell me what you’re coming up with. It still gives us a baseline. It gives us a sense of where our language might be unclear. Maybe we need an extra bullet point to clarify that we don’t only want a thesis statement, but we also need an entire introductory paragraph. Maybe we need an extra explanation for what essay structure needs to be used in this prompt. We can’t just assume the student’s gonna know. We gotta make sure to put that in. So this is just one of the ways I think that AI can really help in the course design process. Again, I mean, I feel like you’ve got that human developing the material, but then you’ve got the AI as that second pair of eyes, that different perspective, something outside of our own head, that can lead us into areas we might not have gone into on our own. I feel like we’ve all had that experience too of you’re developing a class, you come up with an assignment, and you just love the way this assignment works. You’ve used it for 5 or 10 years. You think it’s fantastic. We fall in love with these things, but students change, and the way that we interact with the content or the subject matter or the outcome might have changed within the course. It might have changed institutionally. And we need to be aware of those things, and we need someone to help us fall out of love with our assignments and really test them. And again, I think in the absence of a colleague who might help us do that, for people who are working in silos or people who might have tough deadlines, AI can really help with that

John: In that article that you just referred to, you also provide an example prompt, and we’ll include a link to the article, and then our listeners can go and take a look at the prompt themselves. And I think you provided an example of using a personal narrative assignment in class, and you also talked a little bit about how you can use the AI tool to refine your prompt based on the responses that it has provided. Could you talk a little bit about that example and how you might use AI to directly suggest improvements on the prompts?

Nate: Yeah. So I teach mostly first-year courses, first-year students. I’m the Program Chair for our comp sequence, so I oversee students who are coming through both of our composition classes. In our writing courses, one of the ways that we handle the fact that these are students coming in with a large degree of fear, a lack of confidence, is we try to meet them where they are in terms of their own skill set, of course, but also in terms of their own interests and ideas. So yeah, it’s a narrative prompt that we try to work on in these courses. We try to get students to look at their past experience and to reframe it in a way that’s going to help them see their academic goals, their lifelong learning goals, let’s say. So we come up with this prompt, and it’s a prompt that asks students to talk about an experience they’ve had. Now I can ask AI to run some simulations, and what might be revealed… in fact, when I tried this, one of the things that was revealed… was that the way that I had worded the prompt was allowing students to talk about emotional experiences, but not those that had any real direct correlation to their choice of major, their choice of career field, and that’s what I wanted. I wanted students to find ways to talk about, essentially, their ethos, how they’ve developed this in a way that helps to see their chosen career field in a different light. My prompt wasn’t doing that. It was allowing students to just talk about very traumatic or sad or happy experiences they had at any age. There was no way of framing that into what I wanted. I assumed students would do it, but they might not. So it helped me to really understand that, okay, if I’m going to ask students to talk about a personal experience or a defining experience, I’m going to have to add material to the prompt that clarifies that I’m not just looking for a personal experience, I’m not just looking for a particularly emotional personal experience, I’m looking for a defining one that led to their choice of major or career field. Most of my students are non-traditional in the sense that they’re already working so they already have a chosen career field. And this idea of major versus career field, we typically think of it in terms of career field. But my point is that the AI really helped me to see that one of the ways in which I could better this prompt was to put a little more scaffolding into it and slant it toward what I wanted. Of course, I was worried, as the classroom teacher, when you’re teaching comp, when you’re teaching any class, it’s not about right answers. You kind of want to be surprised. You don’t want only one type of paper or assignment to come to you as a teacher. So you’re trying to write a prompt that leaves a lot of leeway, let’s say, for students to interpret and to give you unique responses, but what I had done was left it so wide open that they weren’t even meeting the guidelines, reall,y weren’t even doing what I wanted, and so AI was able to help me nip that. Now I could have just put that in the class, and after a section, after two sections, I would have figured that out, but I think that that would have been challenging for those students. Let’s say this is a week two assignment. Well, when week five rolls around, suddenly they don’t have that stable week two material to build upon. And so we’re really looking at helping improve course outcomes. We’re looking at making sure students are learning what they need to learn in the class. And again, AI is an avenue to do that. I hope that kind of explains what I’m talking about. I think there are a lot of different ways to do it in a lot of different classes, but that’s just one sort of avenue I tried there.

Rebecca: It’s a really good example of how the AI tool can do analysis of the assignment. Can you give some other examples of the kinds of holes that AI might be able to identify for faculty?

Nate: One thing I’ve been working on recently is universal design for learning. So I teach at an all online school. Our courses are asynchronous, and as a result, access and equitability, and of course, UDL principles are important to all of us, but they’re very much a part of how we design our classes. But so many subject matter experts are not curriculum designers. They’re maybe not even teachers. They’re experts in their field. And so the model now for a lot of universities is just to have these experts, these subject matter experts, design courses. And they’ve got a lot of great ideas, but they don’t understand some of the basics of instructional design. So we were able to develop an AI-based prompt that helped ensure that UDL principles were baked into materials of the course, while at the same time explaining those principles to the subject matter expert that’s working on them. I feel like so many AI tools are kind of like a black box. You ask it a question, and it gives you an answer. And I think that’s one of the problems we see with student use. They have an essay prompt, and they tell AI to write it for them, and AI does, and then they’ve got a product. They didn’t learn anything. It’s the same thing in course design. We want faculty to understand some of these underlying principles. And so back to this idea of UDL principles, we can create a prompt that says to any AI tool, “Okay, here are the main principles of UDL, and here’s some background information.” We could even give the AI some background research studies. Maybe your AI tool has access to the internet and can find some of these things on its own. You can then check and make sure it’s understanding of UDL is, in fact, correct, and that it’s applying it appropriately, through some refinement and testing. But what you get then is a tool that allows a faculty member to say, “Okay, hey, look, I’ve got a discussion board prompt, and I want to talk about essay structure. And here’s how I’ve typically done it: I ask students to identify aspects of essay structure and talk about how meaningful they are, but I want to think of some new ways to do it, and I want to make sure that I integrate UDL principles into this.” And so now the AI can turn back to the faculty member, not only some different ways to approach that course content element in that format… you’ve identified the course content you wanted, which is essay structure, you’ve identified the format, which is discussion board… and so now the AI tool will give you some options that you might not have considered otherwise, but it can ensure that it’s foregrounding or emphasizing discussion prompts that will emphasize Universal Design for Learning principles, and it will explain those connections. So the faculty member will then have an example discussion board, and it will say the reason why this adheres to UDL principles is because of these reasons. So the faculty is learning right along with it, and they’re coming up with interesting material for their course design. Now they might not use that. They might use that as a baseline to spring off and develop their own material, but maybe they’ll internalize some aspect of that, and they’ll learn while they’re doing it. I think it’s a really interesting moment. We talk about how students need to learn how to use AI. I think faculty are in the same boat. There’s a lot of fear, there’s a lot of uncertainty, but the more everybody interacts with it, the more they can learn about the strengths and also the limitations, and maybe they can teach themselves a few things along the way that they might not have been able to pick up otherwise.

Rebecca: Sounds like a good opportunity to model how to use it as a learning tool, which might be really good for faculty to see.

Nate: And I think that’s how it translates into students as well. I mean, again, if we look at some of the popular sites that allow students to upload their essays for automatic grammar checks. I’m not going to name any names, but one of them starts with grammar, and I feel like what happens is that tool just changes the student’s work, and the student doesn’t really understand why or how what they wrote was wrong or less than correct… I don’t want to say wrong… because there’s no upskilling involved. And so I feel like, whether it’s a student application, or whether you’re using it internally for faculty development, baking in some kind of upskilling is what really is going to make this seem more valuable to people, even those people who are sort of anti AI. I think it can show the efficacy of the process, even if you’re still skeptical of the product.

John: You mentioned that a lot of students will just submit work based on the prompts that they receive. And in a September 2023 Faculty Focus article, you talk a little bit about how some faculty may choose to provide AI tools with rubrics or other evaluative criteria from their courses and use that to provide some feedback on student work. And there’s a lot of concern among faculty about whether we should be using it to grade student work, the possibility that we may have students using AI tools to submit work that we then use AI tools to grade, and there’s very little thinking on either side. And you suggest in this article, we should focus on the uniquely human attributes that faculty bring to their classes. Could you talk a little bit about how we can bring uniquely human elements into our teaching, particularly online teaching?

Nate: We all hear this. There’s a lot of talk about the things that AI can do well and the things that it doesn’t do so well. And I think one of the traps we catch ourselves in is AI is really efficient and it’s really fast. And so a lot of people, faculty members, are thinking, “Well, I could never be as fast as AI, I could never be as efficient as AI.” And so they start to feel pretty disheartened about all of that. And it seems like every day there’s more and more that AI is doing well, maybe it’s not doing it well, maybe it’s just doing it well enough. And so it’s pretty daunting. I think it’s a little scary at times, and I feel like a lot of what I was talking about in that article, and a lot of what I still believe, and when I talk with faculty, this is how I try to bring it up, is just that I feel like we do need to lean into these elements that are uniquely human, the things that only we can do in the classroom. For me as a teacher, my attention, my attentiveness in the classroom to the student work. Those are things that AI can’t hack, but AI can hack feedback. It can give really good feedback. So how is my feedback different or better than what the AI might provide? AI can provide their feedback 24 hours a day, whenever a student wants it. I can’t do that. I’m gonna check my email three or four times a day. I’m gonna get back to students within 12 hours, but I’m not right there with them all the time. I can’t be faster, I can’t be better, I can’t be always on. So what can I do? And I feel like that’s where talking in that article about the idea of trying to find those human handprints. This is something that Kevin Roose talks about and those hand prints, I think, are those elements in the course, those elements of interaction with students that are something unique that we could do. And I feel like that’s something that each faculty member, each teacher, needs to kind of come to grips with on their own. As I shared in that article, it was a pretty harrowing process for me, because every time I came across something in my class that I was like, “Oh, this is purely me. Nobody could copy this,” suddenly, AI can do that. I write snappy headlines for my announcements and I write amazingly emotive and snazzy emails. AI can do those things. So it was this moment of realizing, like, okay, all these things that I thought were conveying my attention and my attentiveness in the classroom to my students, those things are something that AI can do. So what’s left? And the thing I settled on, and it’s a pretty basic type of thing, is to interact with students using video feedback for their essays. I think what might get lost in the article, or maybe what I only came to realize more recently, is that the feedback I’m giving is more developmental. It’s experiential. It’s not meant to say, “Hey, your thesis was wrong, and I’m just going to use my face and voice to tell you that.” Really what I wanted was for them to see my face and hear my voice as I read through their papers. They got to see how I reacted to sentences that they wrote. They could see if my brow furrowed or if I kind of stifled a laugh or whatever. They could see when I was stuck. They could see when I was excited. They could register all that in my sort of running commentary on their essay. And I feel like that was one of those moments where I realized, okay, this is it. This element of connection is what I can uniquely contribute to the class. This is what I’m doing as a teacher in an online, asynchronous environment. It’s very different if you’re in front of a classroom of living, breathing students, but in my environment, that, to me, seemed like a moment of connection, and that became kind of a baseline for me as I looked throughout other aspects of the course. What are some things I can do that only I can do? Or that by me doing them, they become more meaningful than if AI was doing them. There’s an example in our courses. It’s an online class, and so we have pretty complex analytics and dashboards that show us how students are performing in the class. You can look at a discussion board and you can see that a student forgot to turn it in. But you can also look at this dashboard that will say, “Hey, this student has been late on three of their previous discussion boards. This is a pattern.” So that’s great. AI, some type of algorithmic tool has identified that. We probably could even create an automatic email that lets the student know, “Hey, you didn’t do this thing.” But is that email timed better than mine would be? Is it written in a more personalized manner, does it take that individual student and their entire record of work in the course with me into account? And I feel like again, maybe someday, yes, AI can do that, but right now, it can’t encompass the full range of my experience as an instructor and my experience of that student’s work in the course. I know when a student needs to be challenged, I know when a student needs to be applauded. I don’t know that AI can figure that out based solely on the product that the student either did or didn’t turn in. And so I feel like, again, on one level, this is kind of a personal process for each faculty member to sort of go through their course and think, “Okay, what’s me in this class? What is uniquely me? Where can I bring more of me and my experience to it?” Because really, as much as this was about my students and trying to connect with them, it was really for me. It helped me to reconnect and re-engage with my teaching. Faculty worry that AI is going to take their jobs or do certain tasks better than they can, and I think really the productive way to deal with that is to just keep doing things as humanly, as uniquely, as messily as we normally do them. Let’s say you’re sitting down on a Friday to grade 20 essays. We’ve all been there. We’ve all done that, and we kind of can shift into autopilot at times. Don’t do that anymore, because AI can do that. AI can provide rote feedback and bland email messages. So it’s almost like a wake up call, in a way, for all of us to stop teaching on autopilot and really reinvigorate our practice. I don’t want to say we’re competing against AI, but I do think it’s a moment that’s helping us reassess what’s important in teaching, what’s important in our own disciplines, what’s important in the content of the class, and try to kind of inspire us to get at it, to uncover those things in a different way. So yeah, it’s about reconnecting to that joy in teaching.

Rebecca: One of the things that it sounds like I’m hearing you advocate for is being a bit nimble in how you’re functioning as a teacher, as the technology shifts and change, and as its abilities to do certain things that free up our time to maybe prioritize or put our energy into other things so we can highlight or utilize the technology to do things that are kind of rote in nature, and then places where we can use our human creativity might be where we’d better invest our time. Can you talk a little bit about how we need to shift? For example, you talked about video feedback. There may be a day with new technologies as they’re evolving, like the HeyGen tool, right, where maybe some of that feedback can be generated, and it could be in video.

Nate: Yeah, it’s terrifying. If you stop and think about it for even a minute, this stuff can overwhelm you. So I’m an educator, but I also have a background in marketing, corporate training, more of the business side of things. And I think what you’re talking about, this idea of being nimble in thinking, it’s maybe not necessarily how a lot of academics usually think about things. You learn your subject matter, you get engrossed in it, and then you teach it, and you have that expertise. I feel like maybe it’s just me, or maybe it’s my training, or maybe it’s the different roles I’ve held over the years. I never think I’ve got it figured out. I’m always worried that I’m five steps behind. I’m always trying to think of new ways to do things, not just to make them better, it’s not about necessarily always making things better, but it’s about experimenting and exploring. And I feel like that mindset, that true growth mindset that we talk a lot about as educators, I think that’s part of what we need to apply to this field itself, to this field of teaching. So many faculty members, so many teachers, got into teaching, not to be a teacher, but because they got their masters and PhD in a particular field knowing that they would be a teacher, but without any actual explicit training in it. So again, yeah, it’s this opportunity to stay open, to be humble, to listen, and to explore widely and see what out there might resonate with us in our own practice. So, I mean, Rebecca, you’re asking for particular examples. And again, I guess I might just kind of default and say that those examples are going to be different for so many people. I think there’s a lot of faculty work that can be, and maybe will be, automated. There’s a lot of elements of record keeping, data tracking, things that we do and spend a lot of time on that we maybe don’t need to spend that much time on anymore with AI able to crunch some of these numbers for us or develop data visualizations for us. I mean, I can pull dashboards… I don’t want to scare any of my adjuncts who are listening in my program… but I can pull a dashboard and I can see how often they’re in the class. I can see what they’re doing. I can see their persistence numbers, their retention numbers. I can see all these different things, and I can compare them to other faculty. So I know that Professor X tends to have students who do a really good job understanding course learning outcome 3, but Professor Y is stronger on course learning outcome 4, but not on course learning outcome 3. In order to get all that information, though, I have to look at three different dashboards. I have to go into the class. I have to look at all these different things. And what does that give me? It gives me some element of information that helps me to understand how I might interact with these professors to provide professional development opportunities that might improve their practice in the classroom. Maybe AI can automate all that. Maybe AI can automate some of that data crunching, and then it can just tell me, “Hey, go look in Professor X’s class. Look at week three. See what they’re doing. Use your own human eyes. But I’m telling you where to go look.” We have tools that do this for student work. I think I’m just trying to sort of talk my way through an example of how some degree of faculty work, like in any career, is kind of just a slog. You wake up every morning, you’ve got 30 emails, and it’s just this digital slush that you have to work through to get to the good stuff, interacting with students, working on a new research article you’re trying to tame, maybe these tools can help us get through some of that, while freeing up our time to be more creative, more human, to do those things that we’ve designated are important for us to do as people. And again, maybe that metric shifts for some people. I’m teaching freshman comp. Feedback is really important to me, I don’t want to automate that, but if you’re teaching a 300-level class or 400-level class, and you want to be able to give some students feedback on grammar, maybe that is the kind of thing that AI could help you to provide to a student, freeing you up to deal more with the complex arguments they’re making in their capstone paper. For me, I live in those details, so I need to do that. But maybe that shifts, again, depending on what your role is, where you’re teaching, what you’re teaching, and again, yeah, like you were saying, just to kind of free us up to do things that are more meaningful when we are the one that does them.

John: We want to help our students learn how to use AI ethically and responsibly to prepare them for their lives beyond our classes, but we’re also concerned that they actually learn some basic skills. What are some strategies that you’ve used or you recommend to encourage students to use AI in a productive manner, but not as a substitute for learning.

Nate: I love this because I feel like so much of the discourse that we hear about is how to ban AI usage, or coming up with these really Byzantine ways of getting around AI usage, AI-proofing an assignment, and I feel like that’s going to have its place, because, as we’ve been talking about, eventually AI is going to beat past all of this. So the crux of this is, how do we find ways to use this in the classroom? For me, the key is to normalize and openly discuss AI use with your students, rather than trying to ban it. Students are already using the tools. We know this. There’s an article published every 10 minutes that gives us new data about how we know students are using AI in classes. So we’re not going to get rid of it. Even if your university or your department bans AI usage or limits it in certain ways, students are still going to do it. So by inviting it in, we can try to come up with a way of getting students to understand better ways to use it, rather than just like you were saying, John, rather than just outsourcing and coming up with products where they don’t learn anything, we’ll find ways to integrate it into the classroom. I did some research recently, and kind of basing on a few other ideas I found, I came up with a framework for balanced AI integration in course design and the framework, it’s just four parts. It’s pretty simple, actually. It starts with setting clear guidelines for AI usage, telling students what they can and can’t use, what tools they can and can’t use, where they can and can’t use them in a particular assignment. From there, it means that the assessment itself needs to emphasize the learning process over the product. The third stage is to ensure that you’re encouraging critical thinking, and the fourth stage is to build in feedback and reflection. So what that looks like is that you’re going to talk to your students about AI as a helpful tool for, let’s say, brainstorming or outlining or maybe checking your finished work. It’s not a shortcut, but it’s a way to use the AI in a productive manner, telling them they can use it in a certain prescribed way. Maybe they’ll use it only in that way. But from there, we do need to make sure that we’re modeling that appropriate usage. We’re showing students how we use AI in our own work. We’re talking about it. We’re discussing it. And we continue to position AI as an assistant, not an author, not somebody who is going to generate this material for us, but a way that it can help us get to certain aspects of whatever the assignment might be, emphasizing that process over the product. We’re so used to grading essays. Maybe the essay isn’t what we grade anymore. Maybe we grade the entire process that leads to the essay. It’s not about the thesis statement, it’s about how the student documents their process of developing the thesis statement. Maybe that’s part of how we do this. But I also think we need to make sure that we’re building in reflective tasks where the students can really analyze the AI generated content. They can talk about its limitations, they can talk about the biases. They can talk about how they might have done something different, and analyze what that means, try to figure out what the difference is between human-generated output, writing, versus AI-generated output. Having that reflection built in is something that I think can really help students with this idea of authenticity and authorship. So again, just making sure that you’re explicit in your guidelines, making sure that you’re showing where AI can and can’t be used, and kind of talking about that usage, I think that’s one way that faculty can really bring it into the classroom. It can’t be worse than it already is, right? We’re already dealing with half of our papers being generated fully by AI. I know it sounds almost counterintuitive to say to your students, “Okay, look, you can use AI for this, but you gotta use it in this way,” but I have to believe that if you set up those guardrails, if you work with students, I think they’re going to get to that point where they’re using it as a partner, as a tool, rather than something that’s just wholesale generating their content. I mean, again, this might work differently in a math class than it might in a humanities class, but I do think that there’s generalizability here. There’s a way to make this work in a lot of different environments.

Rebecca: Can you share some examples of how you’ve made it work in your writing courses?

Nate: I can, for example, we’re talking about the idea of generating. One thing I developed is a tool called a thesis generator versus a thesis accelerator, right? So you see these thesis generators online, and what a thesis generator does is a student plugs in a certain amount of information and it just gives them a thesis statement. Again, there’s no learning. The student hasn’t learned anything about what a thesis is, and they certainly didn’t have any real, let’s say, agency or authorship of the thesis statement that’s been developed automatically through one of these generators. And you can go to an AI tool and you can say, “Hey, I’m working on an essay about why I want to be a nurse, and it kind of stems from the fact that one of my parents was really ill when I was a kid, and so I just want a thesis statement that does all that. Make it sound good,” and the AI will do that. So this thesis accelerator tool that I’ve used in a few of my courses is a way for students to talk about their thesis statement without letting the thesis statement be written for them. The AI has been prompted explicitly not to write any material for the student to use in their essay, but to work with them to continue to test their assumptions and ideas, to get them to form this thesis statement. So it asks questions. It asks what the student is interested in, what they want to write about, what they’re thinking about, asking if it really aligns to the topic. It’s asking very probing questions that are pretty explicit in terms of trying to get this thesis developed, but it won’t write it. It will keep working on it that way. But the assignment is not about interacting with the AI. The assignment is not about the thesis statement. The assignment is about the student reflecting on “Okay, I walk into this process. Here’s what I wanted to do. Here’s what the AI wanted me to do. Where does that intersect? What did I come up with? Is that different from what I would have come up with on my own?” and to just really authentically kind of assess, “Okay, this thesis statement that I’ve got, some of these are my words. Some of these aren’t. Some of this idea is mine. Maybe this idea isn’t,” and I feel like that’s one way to get students to understand those limitations, to get students to understand that this is a tool meant to potentially help them, but not supplant them. And I found, as with any assignment, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Some students really approach that strongly, and they get a lot out of it. Other students find ways to work around it. But I feel like creating a tool like that, creating a path for students to interact with AI, rather than simply to use it to get information or output. It’s in its infancy. We’re still figuring this out, but I think that’s the way forward to get to this idea of personalized learning that AI seems to be saying it is promising us, this idea that we can have all these personalized learning tools. How do we get there? And I think part of it comes from interaction and conversation. So teaching students in that way, truly dialogic, I think that’s one of the ways we can get there.

John: So one of the things I think you’re suggesting is that faculty have to engage with AI to be able to work with it effectively. And I think throughout academia, there are a lot of faculty who are reluctant to even consider the use of AI and just want to ban its use by students. What sort of strategies would you encourage institutions to do in terms of making faculty more aware of what AI is capable of and how perhaps their students might be using AI tools.

Nate: I think partly it starts with normalizing the use of AI, something we were talking about in terms of students in the classroom with faculty. I think we just need to make sure that there are forums for experimentation. Faculty need to be able to talk about the AI and the ways that they’re using it, they need to be able to share that with their leaders. They need to be able to feel a sense of trust that nobody’s judging them based on things that they’re doing, as long as they’re doing things responsibly, ethically, experimenting. I think that’s how we learn. And having forums for that, whether it’s a community of practice, whether it’s discussion circles, whether it’s a Friday open office hour, some way to share and talk about the gains, the wins, the losses. I think that’s a first step of taking an organization, an institution, a university, and helping it kind of take those steps toward AI use in higher ed. But I think that an institution can say, Okay, we’ve got this really forward thinking process with AI, and we think it’s okay to use it in X, Y, and Z ways, and we’d like you to experiment and explore. There are still faculty who won’t do that. A lot of faculty just aren’t going to want to learn this. And so [LAUGHTER] I’m not entirely sure the answer to that question, I think that’s the underlying problem with so much of the work that’s being done with AI and higher education, is the fact that you need to have willing partners, you need to have supportive institutional governance. You need to have supportive infrastructure in place, but you also need faculty to truly engage with it with an open mind. And I’m not saying that that’s bad or good. Everyone’s allowed to do what they want to do. I know a lot of faculty will never want to use this. The sort of pervasive idea that we see with AI is that we should ban it, it shouldn’t be used in the classroom at all. So many of my colleagues fall on that side of the spectrum, and that’s fine, but then I guess it’s a process that’s going to take time. I can only imagine what it was like for teachers when a principal walked into the office, the bullpen office one day and said, “Hey, you know what, tomorrow for your quizzes and tests, I want you to use the Scantron form. It’s weird. It’s different. It’s totally new. I want you to try this Scantron out,” or the day somebody first put an overhead projector on a teacher’s desk and was like, “Use this to teach. Give me your chalk. Start using this thing.” I feel like it’s fundamentally changing how we can interact in the classroom with our students, with each other. And if you don’t want to engage that, think about that. I guess that’s your prerogative. Famous story in my family, my dad retired from his job the day they put a computer on his desk. He walked out the door that day. I think it’s going to be a slow process, but I think eventually we’re going to get to a point where faculty are going to be able to see the benefits of this. We’re going to show the benefits to them. We’re going to have to run workshops. We’re going to have to run dedicated professional development tracks that explain the small wins and the large wins of using AI, some of the upskilling that we were talking about earlier in the conversation. If we show faculty this isn’t just about generating content, but it’s about learning while we’re doing it. It’s a tool for reflection, an aid for reflection. I think the more we can develop these use cases that show that and we can share those, I think the more we’re going to win people over. We’re not going to win everybody over, and I think that’s fine. There are probably a lot of people who still won’t use Scantrons, but I feel like it’s one of those moments where getting to the hearts and minds of faculty is what’s really crucial here, and a lot of the conversation around this doesn’t always seem to be productive for that. We’re talking about limiting AI or banning AI. I think we need to have more conversations like what we’re having today: ways to productively include AI, and then let’s talk about them, let’s delineate them, let’s share them, and let’s see if it resonates for some people. Maybe it will for others, maybe it will for some, and then it sort of spreads.

John: And we should note that in the podcast released a week before this one, we addressed some of those issues in terms of what’s being done at several campuses in SUNY, and we’ll include a link to that in the show notes. But one of the things we’ve noticed here is that many of the faculty were really resistant to the use of AI. Once they were in a workshop and got to see how they could use AI to help improve their teaching, they became much more aware of possibilities, and their attitude changed really dramatically within even just a few hours of that professional development. But the key is getting people to that professional development work, and it’s sometimes hard to get people started with that, especially if they have this fear or this serious concern about ethical issues associated with AI.

Nate: I think that’s why finding ways to show how AI could help do work you might already be doing is one of the ways in for faculty, especially. I mean, what you’re talking about is the same kind of thing we see in studies. People don’t want to use AI once they do it, because they see how it works, they start to understand, okay, this can be a powerful tool. They may still sort of ethically make a choice not to use it, I suppose, but I feel like it’s just seeing how it works. Can be the gateway for so many people. So what’s that gateway for faculty, but to show them how it might help influence their work, how it might help free up time to do the creative things we were talking about earlier. I feel like the more we can give examples of that, I think the more we can lead people to it. And it means starting small. It means looking at what we’re already doing and seeing if there are ways this can be made to help assist in doing it a little bit better.

Rebecca: Along the same lines, one of the things that I’ve observed in the way that institutions are handling AI is typically, right now it’s voluntary, like professional development around AI is voluntary. And so you’re getting folks that are at least curious or completely resistant because they want to fight against it, so they’re showing up to things, like there’s some motivation to show up, and it’s their motivation to show up. But if we start meeting faculty where they’re already at in department meetings and other places that are places where they’re already kind of required to be to at least raise the issues or the conversations that’ll continue involving some additional people.

Nate: That’s the hope. One of the things we’re going to start piloting this with the new academic year is we have a roster of course revisions that are going to happen over the course of the year, and we’re going to sit down with faculty experts, and we’re going to say, “Okay, you can follow the old 12-week model of revising your course, where you’re going to meet with people, you’re going to develop the content, or you can follow this new model. It’s nine weeks long. It’s a little shorter. It’s going to use AI to help assist you. Which way do you want to try and if you pick the nine week way, we’re going to document that, we’re going to share that out as a kind of story, good and bad, whatever happens.” And I feel like that’s Rebecca kind of at the heart of what you’re talking about, this idea of finding ways to get faculty to connect with it that are kind of low lift. You’re going to do this thing anyway. Do you want to try this other possibly easier, possibly faster way of doing things, just to see what happens? You want to help us figure this out? And I think that might help. I love being an academic. I love teaching university. I love my students, but you read these emails from Microsoft or Asana, or I mentioned Ethan Mollick earlier. He has a substack, and you just see the massive amounts of money that businesses are pouring into AI training. They’re mandating it. They’re throwing everyone into day-long workshops. They’re testing and piloting. They’re opening up tools and universities and institutions just aren’t doing that. We’re not as well funded, and maybe we’re a little stodgy, maybe we like to do things at our own pace. And I respect that and appreciate that, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m an academic and not a CEO, one of the many reasons I’m not a CEO. But I feel like sometimes I read those things and I just think, “Boy, how nice would it be if we could just mandate everybody an AI exploration day,” you know, just play with a new tool and see what you come up with. Because professional development, educational development in higher ed, is so different from what I experienced as a corporate trainer, where people were thrilled. They might make fun of it. They might think the outcomes weren’t going to be worth it, but they were there and they were active and they were engaged, and as we’re intimating here, it’s tough to get people to show up, it’s tough to get them to engage, it’s tough to track if they learned anything, and it’s tough to check in six months later and see if they’re still doing it. So what does that look like? That’s the challenge of educational development overall, probably. But maybe it’s small wins. Maybe it’s small communities that catch fire. I don’t know.

Rebecca: I wanna underscore one word that you said, which was play. I think that’s something that we don’t often allocate time to play around with new tools and technology, and we’re putting our time resources towards something else, but if we put time resources towards play and experimentation, we might find something that’s useful.

Nate: I think we just have to engage with that growth mindset. We have to be like our students. We have to be learners. We have to listen. We have to just explore, instead of always jumping in with the information, with the answer. We have to sit back and maybe that play comes from it. One quick example, my colleagues are probably not listening, so I’ll share this. I woke up one day and I had an email that had kicked off the night before. There were like six or seven of us on the email, and it was probably at that point, like, 16 or 17 emails long. I clock off, I go to bed, wake up the next morning, and there it is, staring at me. And I was like, boy, this is exactly what people talk about that, “Hey, I can help you with your email.” So I grabbed all of that, put it into a protected AI tool that’s not going to train itself on my data. And I just said, “Is my name mentioned here? Are they talking about comp? Like, why am I involved in this?” And it spit back some really good, useful information. And I was like, “Okay, great.” And then I had 30 minutes to play, to just do something else, something different, and instead of engaging in the back and forth politics of a gigantic email chain, I got to cut through the noise and do something that was more meaningful for me in that moment, and that was that play of exploration, trying something new. If we can get back to that and can enkindle that, I think we’re going to get there.

John: I did enable the Apple intelligence on my phone, which is only a few months old, and it does give me email summaries automatically. They’re often somewhat distorted. In fact, they’re often so scary it forces me to look at my email sooner than I would have otherwise, [LAUGHTER] because it does look like there’s something serious that I have to address right away. But it’s getting better. Those types of summaries can be really useful.

Nate: I remember when I first turned on AI summary on Zoom, we do a lot of work on Zoom as an online institution. I first turned on an AI summary, I was in a meeting, and afterwards, I’m looking at the summary, and I’m like, these aren’t the things we talked about at all. You got everyone’s names wrong, and this is really bizarre. And not even three months later, I was looking at it again, and I was like, this is actually now really good. And so along with playing, I think it’s that sense of continuing to grow and to learn to keep coming back, don’t play with it and then write it off, but continue to explore, continue to play, and to also take what’s there to be taken and don’t over rely on it. We don’t want our students to just over rely on this. You don’t want me to never read my emails again, just reading summaries of emails. But I do think that there are ways we can develop that mindset, really a deep sense of AI literacy as an important outcome in and of itself, where we realize how to interact with these tools in a way that’s going to help us free up that time. Do better work more as opposed to the slush work more. And we get buried in our emails. We get buried in grading. We get buried in so many different things. There are ways to shortcut some of that while still doing the meaningful stuff. I’d like to figure out what that is.

Rebecca: Sounds like a great note to get to our last question, which is we always wrap up by asking: What’s next?

Nate: Well, what’s next for me is probably grading papers. It’s… [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Wait. No, that’s the slush. [LAUGHTER]

Nate: For me, that’s important work. We’ve been talking about this a little bit. For me, I think one of the things that’s really important is to continue to learn alongside other people. That is how I’ve learned the most. I’m a teacher, but I’m also a teacher of teachers, and one of the ways I learn how to teach my students better is by working with them. One of the ways I learn how to interact with my other faculty members, the faculty members that I oversee, is by being a teacher myself, seeing how they do things, working with them, helping to figure out what those elements are that can be honed or refined or developed. And so to me, it’s always just about learning. It’s about putting myself out there, trying to figure out what can be figured out, and being curious, listening, finding ways to think strategically, to take the small thing I might be doing and think about it in terms of how that might scale to other classes, other teachers. I’m playing around with AI on my computer in the morning. I’m trying to figure out different ways of doing things. While I’m doing that, I’m also thinking, “ooh, how can I convey this to somebody else? How can I best show this, demonstrate this to help other people get excited about it?” So it’s about structured play. It’s about strategic thinking. It’s about having fun and getting back to the root of what brought me to this crazy discipline to begin with. I want to ask better questions. I don’t really want to know the answers to things, because that always seems like the end. I just want to keep asking questions and getting to new places along the way.

John: Well, thank you. This has been a fascinating discussion, and it’s one that is really important for people to be having right now on every campus.

Nate: Yeah, I appreciate it. It’s great to talk about this stuff. And like I said, you guys kept me on my toes a little bit here. It’s fun to think out loud, and I appreciate your time today, John, Rebecca.

Rebecca: Sounds like a really human activity that just occurred [LAUGHTER] that has maybe a relational aspect, right, that maybe can’t be replicated by AI.

Nate: I mean, as podcasters, you guys have explored with the Google podcasts, right?

John: Notebook LM? Yeah.

Nate: …where you can give it a research article, and you know you’re listening to it, and it sounds like a podcast. It sounds like you’re listening to NPR, but the information is wildly wrong, and it’s missing that nuance and these elements of redirecting things, stuff that’s coming up that’s not scripted. Some of the things we talked about today were not questions you shared with me that we might talk about, and that’s great. Yeah, that’s the human enterprise. It’s messy, it’s weird. Can’t be predicted. That’s what makes it fun and worthwhile.

John: Although notebook LM is getting better, as all these other tools are as well.

Rebecca: More deep fakes ahead. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Thanks for joining us.

John: Yes, thank you.

Nate: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]