442. Not Token Gestures

While colleges and universities have made substantial progress in attracting a diverse mix of students, there are still substantial equity gaps in student outcomes. In this episode, Roberta Hurtado joins us to discuss approaches that can be used to reduce these gaps. Roberta is an associate professor in the English and Creative Writing Department here at SUNY Oswego, where she also serves as Director of Latino and Latin American Studies, and has been a fellow in the Triandiflou Institute for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Transformative Practice. She also has served as a 2023 Fellow in the SUNY Hispanic Leadership Institute.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: While colleges and universities have made substantial progress in attracting a diverse mix of students, there are still substantial equity gaps in student outcomes. In this episode, we explore approaches that can be used to reduce these gaps.

[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 Roberta Hurtado. Roberta is an associate professor in the English and Creative Writing Department here at SUNY Oswego, where she also serves as Director of Latino and Latin American Studies, and has been a fellow in the Triandiflou Institute for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Transformative Practice. She also has served as a 2023 Fellow in the SUNY Hispanic Leadership Institute. Welcome Roberta.

Roberta: Hi, thank you for having me.

Rebecca: Today’s teas are… Roberta, are you having tea with us today?

Roberta: I am. It is Bigelow Cozy Chamomile,.

Rebecca: Nice. Sounds nice and relaxing, something that maybe a continuation of spring break?

Roberta: A little bit. Yeah. [LAUGHTER]

John: We’re just coming off of spring break here, and it is still below freezing here today in Oswego.

Rebecca: How about you, John?

John: I am having a nice, warm Lapsang Souchong today.

Rebecca: Nice. I have a Scottish Breakfast tea today.

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss your new book, Not Token Gestures: Practical DEI strategies in 21st Century Higher Education. Can you tell us the origin story of this book project?

Roberta: Absolutely. So I was a SUNY HLI fellow in spring of 2023 and part of that institute is a requirement for you to do a capstone project, something that’s going to serve your university, something that’s going to help if there’s a gap or there’s an area where you can lend your expertise to. And at the time, I was working on the Triandiflou Institute fellowship as well. So I was doing them simultaneously, and we were looking at the importance of representation among faculty, and so one of the ways that you can intervene is to directly attend to the hiring practice. Where do you send job ads? What kind of language do you have in job ads? One of the things about the hiring process for faculty is that you might do really great workshops at the very beginning, everybody’s enthusiastic, you’ve got energy, it’s the summer. And then three months later, you’re still [LAUGHTER] in those very first preliminary steps, because the process itself goes over about a year from start to finish, from drafting the job ad, to sending it out, to getting people to come through, to getting them into the first- round interviews, first-round interviews, to second-round interviews. It’s just a lot that goes into it. And so what were really great workshops at the beginning are distant memories where you remember sitting and looking at a screen or being in a room, and sometimes these workshops also have aspects to them that need a lot of clarification. So, b instead of saying, “Well, send your job ads out to different types of arenas,” well, why would you do that? Normally, when we send out a job ad, let’s say in English, we would send it to the Modern Language Association job call list. But who are the people who actually look at that job call list? If you look at the demographics for who’s actually MLA members, paying members, who’s going to be accessing that, you might actually find that you have people from maybe elite institutions making up the majority of the membership, or you have people from very specific geographic backgrounds, people from very specific socioeconomic backgrounds, and so without meaning to, you’re limiting the pool of people. You’re being very selective without even realizing it. So, if you want to be more expansive in who’s getting the job calls, you need to know the history behind why it ends up being that it’s so selective, and then being able to move forward. Well, where are the other places where you can send the job ads? I don’t think people are intentionally ignoring the variety of places you can put them, but sometimes it’s just a matter of knowing where to go. So, all of this is to say I created this capstone, and while I was doing it, like the good English professor [LAUGHTER] that I am, I wrote an article. And when I wrote the article, it was a mix of different types of theories and historical background and information, and I sent it to a journal. I didn’t think it was going to inherently be a knockout of the park, but I thought I would get feedback, and the feedback that I got was that it was too narrowly tailored, that creating a process to increase representation of different types of faculty in Higher Ed was too narrowly tailored of a [LAUGHTER] focus, which, it is what it is. Maybe whoever was reading it, that’s the way they thought about it. And I channeled Michelle Obama [LAUGHTER] in that moment. I was like, “Well, I don’t think that this should end here. So what do we do?” And I pitched it to what was then Lexington Books, to say, “I’m not the only one who’s thinking about these things. How do we do work that makes higher ed fulfill its promise of academic excellence for all?” And so I went to Lexington Press. They picked up a contract to create an edited collection that was going to have voices from all different fields of academia, and from there, it moved forward to the call for papers and then a wonderful collection.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about how you selected contributors for your project?

Roberta: Absolutely. So I was very fortunate to, in my time at HLI, get to meet a wonderful array of academics and administrators, people who genuinely care about their campuses and the people that they serve. So one person was running the pediatrics residency for one of the SUNY campuses. Another person who runs camp programs, AOP, for one campus, and their projects were speaking to the very things that my project was speaking to. So when I got the contract, I was able to solicit submissions from people who I knew were already doing this work, and I was also able to reach out to faculty from around the campus and from Oswego, who I knew that were doing work that was very similar, and nationwide. So I reached out to administrators who I knew, who are doing this work, and doctors, people who are practicing and working in education and artists as well, and asked people if they would be willing to share. And I think I was very fortunate with the timing, because where I sent the call for papers, I got a number of people responding as well. So for instance, from Virginia Tech, there’s a center there where people who were working there created a chapter, sent it to me, and then faculty had come together as well to create a chapter and send it in. So in some cases, it was a matter of the people who I knew doing this work and also getting them to sit down. Nobody has spare time. [LAUGHTER] So being able to find people who would be able to carve time out of their schedules to sit and write and create transcripts, work on artwork, there are testimonials, and there’s also personal narratives, there’s letters. So knowing people who had some things that they would like to submit, and then being able to find other people who were also in it. And one thing that was interesting about it was that the chapters are also varied. So there’s three different sections for the book. The first one is about personal responses to what’s going on with DEI in Higher Ed in the country. The second is about pedagogy, and how do you teach? How do you even create a syllabi? And then the third is about administrative tactics and techniques that can be implemented. All of the chapters were very different, and even though one might focus on, for instance, there’s a chapter on how to create a course for Introduction to Criminal Justice. Some of the techniques that are being proffered in that chapter might seem on the surface like they’re very specific to that department, but they’re not. How do you create a syllabus that has readings that students can access if they can’t afford them? In another chapter, how do you have students introduce themselves in ways that don’t put them in front of their peers and having to say things that might be a little personal, but at the same time, ensuring that the classroom is a space where they know they will be honored and respected for their differences and that their differences won’t be treated as deficiencies. How do you go about doing that? Well, these chapters offer suggestions, and again, with the idea that we all go through training to become members of higher ed, but sometimes there are things that we just don’t know or maybe weren’t made available to us when we were working to become faculty members or administrators and so these are those opportunities to also sit back and question, “what were the thought processes behind why I did that?” [LAUGHTER] You know, “why did I go about choosing these things?” So when the chapters all came in and the artwork was coming in, I was able to sit down and really see a lot of richness in each one beyond even just kind of like that surface level read, which was really exciting actually.

John: For several decades, educational institutions at all levels have put quite a bit of emphasis on DEI initiatives. But in the last year or so, a little over a year here, we’ve seen that under very heavy attack in the federal level, and also we’ve seen quite a few attacks at the level of various states. You address this a bit in your introductory chapter, which is entitled,”It’s Not a Death Knell, It’s a Call to Arms.” Can you give us an overview of the arguments in this chapter?

Roberta: So I don’t know how everybody responded to hearing about that Supreme Court case where they decided that race could not be used as part of the decision making process for admittance to higher education. I think one of the elements of it that’s been very confusing for me has been that the Supreme Court requires that questions be and decisions being narrowly tailored and limited in scope. And the verdict that came out, that was read, the decision was very clear that this was about how race as a category is used in admissions processes. The expansion of it since then to apply to things like scholarships and to apply to programs have been, if we’ve noticed, like on the state level in most cases. So we’re seeing in like Texas, and this is not a knock on Texas, I used to live in Texas, Road Runner all the way.[LAUGHTER] But we’re seeing state level and regional level now taking up the impetus and saying, “Well, we can’t talk about things that are going to make people uncomfortable,” and that’s kind of been the language of it. And we saw it during the first administration, right? There was that executive order that you couldn’t teach things that are going to make people uncomfortable, and it’s such an interesting concept that some people are not allowed to be made to feel uncomfortable, and some people are. And the question is, “why are some allowed and some are not?” And that introductory chapter, it did recognize that we do need to grieve, because it’s a dream, right? Our ideals are wonderful things. They’re goals that we are always striving to and even if we think that we’re achieving them, we always have more that we can do, and so to have made so many strides, to have been pushing and pushing for something as basic as recognition of infrastructural inequity and inequality, and then to have it be brought up as something that is the thing that’s going to be attacked… it hurts. It genuinely hurts. And for all the people who would go to college and can see themselves as deserving of an education, and then the idea that they would be turned around to and told “No, you’re not worthy of learning.” That hurts. And so we do need to grieve, but we don’t give up. We’ve been seeing this since the ‘60s. We’ve been seeing this since the ‘20s. We’ve been seeing this since the 1880s, the 1860s, we’ve been seeing this for centuries in the United States… that we don’t give up, we just change strategy. One thing that was happening around this decision, and then that came and, as you noted, especially in the most recent months, just the constant barrage of it, but we’ve also been seeing the mechanisms of this country coming forward and saying “No, you are allowed [LAUGHTER] to have opinions, you are allowed to teach content, you are allowed to have policies to make campuses spaces of learning.” I think one thing about it has been, though, that we’ve had to also take stock of what we’ve done in the past and if DEI has been treated as a side piece or as a token gesture, yeah, some of those do end up having problems within them. So if we say, “We’re going to create scholarships for a particular community.” Well, why? What was the thought process behind that? And I think sometimes, when we lose sight of what the reasoning is behind things, then things can become token gestures, and we need to reevaluate those too. Every time we’re doing something new, that’s part of the process of being in higher education too. We need to constantly be reflecting on what we’re doing, what’s working, what’s not working. And so that first chapter, it acknowledges the pain that many no doubt feel and continue to feel about what’s going on, but also a reminder, now is the time to keep going. Now is the time to regroup, think through, self critique, self analyze, come together as community and look at what we can do to move forward, because we don’t give up on our students, we don’t give up on our programs, and that’s why [LAUGHTER] we got into these fields, I would hope, or I think, because we do believe in education as just being something that should be available to all.

Rebecca: So your chapter kind of sets the stage for the first section of the book, which contains a number of essays responding to these attacks, policy attacks. What are some of the other suggestions that are raised in this section, or those actions that you’re kind of pointing to?

Roberta: So the first section of the edited collection is very personal. And I think one of the things that gets lost in the debates about DEI in Higher Ed, is that it is very personal. It is people’s very lives. It is their futures. It is people trying to figure out who they’re going to become, and especially if you’re from communities that have historically been told, “You don’t have a future,” it’s personal. You feel it in your very flesh. It’s not abstract, it’s not a concept, it’s reality. And so if we’re going to really do the work of ensuring that Higher Ed serves everyone, we need to be very cognizant of the very human toll of getting into college and being on a campus and graduating and becoming whatever we’re gonna be in the future. So that these first entries in the book are really about setting that stage, about centering the different types of ways of knowing that people have, the different types of experiences that inform who they are when they set foot on a campus or in a classroom or in an office, and then also thinking about, what are our different responsibilities to each other? Is it just that we’re going to say, “Well, we’re all different,” or is it “We’re all different and difference isn’t deficiency. Difference means an opportunity to learn and grow and be together and shift and transform and make new places and ways of knowing and ways of thinking.” It includes lots of different contributors. So there’s artists, there’s photography, there’s poetry, there’s letters to people, there’s personal statements, and these were all designed to very much center the human experience of being in higher ed.

John: The second section, as you already mentioned, focuses on strategic curriculum. Could you share with our listeners some of the suggestions that are provided by the authors in this section?

Roberta: Yeah, and actually, I’m going to give the title of one of the chapters because it was just good, “You Can’t Heal Us if You Don’t Even Know Us: Music, Medicine, and Rethinking Pre-Med Curriculum Adaptation to Community Needs.” This particular entry was a transcript with Dr. Christophe Jackson and myself, and I was asking him… he had been working on a Fulbright, which is actually now underway. And he looks at Music and Medicine. He’s done a lot of work with the jazz musicians clinic in New Orleans. The man is brilliant, or like, when you think about brilliance embodied, that’s him. But he’s very humble, and he’s very passionate about music. He’s also very passionate about medicine, and especially for his own community, but for everybody. And while we were talking, he was sharing with me, if you were going to create a music medicine class, but fundamental to this chapter is actually thinking through the values that educators bring with them when they teach. I think all of the chapters in this section really ask faculty to take a pause and think about “what are the values that you’re bringing with you that are informing who you are and how you put together a syllabus?” And it’s not because we don’t have values or don’t know them in theory when we’re walking into class, but sometimes we get so wrapped up into making a syllabus that we don’t actually pause and think, “What do I know about the people who are coming into my classroom? What do I know about the communities that I’m actually seeking to serve?” If you don’t genuinely know, and this is to create music medicine syllabi for pre-med students… if you don’t know anything about the communities you want to serve, how are you going to serve them? Medicine is not one and done. It needs to be adjusted. It needs to be organized so that the community that’s at hand can be worked with, so that it’s not just them being told, “Oh, you have to do this, this and this,” but instead, “Do you want to be healthy? What kind of things help to be healthy in your community?” From that, we see with other chapters… so for instance, there’s one about a Master’s class for people who want to go into clinical work with mental health, again, thinking through, how do we hold ourselves accountable when we’re creating syllabi, but also in ways that allow students to engage in those practices of self reflection, so that when they leave college, if they already have a profession in mind, they can consider those or use those skills to help them along their own career paths and that is something that many of us are thinking about. You come to college, you learn all of this information, but you’re also figuring out who you want to be in the next phases of your life. And so these, I don’t know what they would be called, like, not soft skills, I’m trying to think of like those kind of invisible elements of the class where you figure out, who are you going to be, how are you going to deliver information to people? When you hear critique, how do you respond? Those are elements that are fundamental to a class but often don’t get talked about. And so when you have a chapter that asks you to consider about using self in relationship to understand another, about cultural humility and empathy through storytelling and counselor training curriculum, you’re being shown those kind of tools that you can bring into your class, even if you’re not teaching a mental health practitioner class. There are other ones that are a bit more specific in terms of field and going into what’s typically called Ethnic Studies, but it’s a pan area, right? So there’s one critically teaching Asian American Studies at an Asian American Studies-less University. So Asian American Studies covers a wide range. It’s very interdisciplinary. If you don’t have an actual department, though, that’s dedicated to that learning. So for instance, Urbana Champaign has an Asian-American studies program. If you don’t have faculty who are directly dedicated to that because you don’t have a department, how do you go about teaching it? So they actually offer a syllabi that they’ve crafted, engaging students, engaging faculty, getting workshops together, doing learning activities. So there’s one for Angel Island, where you get to learn about people’s experiences traveling to the United States and what sort of scenarios they would have encountered. These are very real learning opportunities, very tangible learning opportunities that can have major impacts on students and again, helping them see who they are in the learning process. So even if you’re not teaching Asian-American Studies, this is an assignment that you can then adapt to your own models, to model in your own classes that maybe you hadn’t thought about before or even known that that was a resource available to you. So section two tries to offer different strategies. They might look field-specific on the surface, but when you actually get to look into the chapter more deeply, you find all of these different techniques that are fun in many cases, and really thoughtful and engaging.

Rebecca: I love the wide variety of offerings that you’ve described in these sections. Now we’re fortunate to be working at a public institution in a state system that’s actively working to provide more equitable Higher Ed outcomes, but historically marginalized populations are still experiencing lower rates of persistence to graduation. What are some of the sources of these inequities?

Roberta: There was an article that just came out, and it’s these scientists trying to explain why there is intergenerational poverty. And since we have all of these things, like social programs that are in theory, designed to, quote, unquote, “get people out of it,” then it must be genetic. The article just came out in like 2026. So in 2026 we are still hearing iterations of eugenics propaganda coming out as science. Because what would make sense if we have all of these social programs that people just don’t seem to be rising and fundamental to this study was a refusal to acknowledge that intergenerational poverty is not a matter of genes. That even if there are social programs that are available, are they inherently designed to help people get out of intergenerational poverty? Or are they meant to, and I’m going to quote Martin Espada here, “teach you to shuffle forward for charity.” If they are designed to help you to live a life that you are proud of, to cultivate the skills that you wake up in the morning and are thrilled to have, my guess would be that you would then be able to engage the world around you in a way that is meaningful to you. If we’re thinking about then how education links to that, then you would be attending college, and you would be dedicated to an education that would allow you to actuate those very things. But if we’re not in that system, if we’re not in that world, if we’re in a world that’s designed to teach you to shuffle forward, then you’re not being taught to cultivate those best parts of yourself. And even if you are able to attain some of those aspects, there’s a lot behind it that just isn’t there for you. When we talk about in introductory classes, for instance, for students who are coming in, if you are from a school that… and we’re seeing this more now, and I’m not trying to throw shade on people who are all about technology… I am not… but science is still showing that children learn better with direct, one-on-one contact with a human being. But if you’re from schools that highly emphasize, or heavily emphasize the use of technology, rather than that direct one-on-one attention because of class size or whatever, those children are going to be learning differently than children who go to affluent schools where they do have lower child-to-teacher ratios. And so you start to see from very, very early ages, disparities in what children are learning. And so then you get students coming to college who genuinely want to learn, genuinely want to finish their degree. But what support mechanisms do you have there that are, one, going to actually help them get through the program in a way that’s responsible? And the next thing is, how are you going to do so in a way where the student is able to cultivate an identity that is meaningful to them? Where they’re not just a number, where they’re not just a tuition payment or whatever it is. And we’re starting to hear that economic descriptions more and more about education, and when we do that, then these students who are really struggling to try and make it through, ‘Do you see yourself as part of the campus?” There’s these discussions about belonging. We’re in campuses from an educational model that was designed centuries ago with very specific people in mind about who was going to attend them. What we’re trying to do now is retrofit them to meet these needs and that very real question that I think this book takes up is, “What are the things that we can retrofit, and what are the things that we can just imagine as new and run with those new things too?” I think when we talk about social inequalities, too, it becomes a space where people can start to feel very defensive, and that breaks down conversations, because it’s like, “Well, you know, this money is going over here, and it should be doing all of these things that make differences,” but it’s about how everyone’s involved in it. Everyone from children from rural communities where the school year is dependent on harvest season, to children whose families move because of harvest season, to people who are veterans, to people who are single parents and trying to get degrees so that they can get jobs that will hopefully pay so that they can send their kids to a better school, and that kind of process. So when we talk about these social inequalities and how they show up in college settings, we’re talking about this large, interconnected, intertwined ball of threads and strings, and pulling at one or the other might not be the thing that helps a student get through maybe all of them are. But I think this book offers some insights. When you have students who need more assistance, what sort of things can we do to offer that help in the classroom, and then also administratively?

John: So students come in with different backgrounds because of the quality of the schools and differences in parents’ education and other things which affect where students start at when they enter the school system, and we have a lot of systemic inequality. But, when we have the students coming into our classes, what can faculty do to help reduce some of these equity gaps in outcomes, to create more of a sense of belonging and to help all students be more successful?

Roberta: So read Section two of this book. [LAUGHTER] I mean, some of the things are about very technical pieces, So like, how are things laid out, what types of resources are available with the syllabus and so on. But then there are sometimes things that are less obvious, and they come from the things that we were taught when we were getting our educations that we replicate. When we have a professor we like, we replicate what they did, because it obviously worked. But I think there is some privileging. For instance, reading. Something as basic as that, but also that students are bringing with them different types of knowledge, different types of critical ways of knowing, and that many times, those aren’t being represented in the content of the classes, in the curriculum, because we’ve been taught to focus on one particular thing or one particular way of knowing. And here I’m thinking, this isn’t in the book, but just if I’m a student and I’m not used to having math classes where I see any of the things I care about represented, and all of a sudden I’m being shown how math is actually important in all of these different realms of my life taught from a way that my community speaks, then I’m going to learn it differently than if I’m shown something on the board and then somebody steps away. The ways that I’m going to engage the space, the sort of questions, and this is from section two, now, how do you just even set out the room so that when students come in, they have space to sit down? How do you go about offering assignments? What sort of options do you have for them? So if you offer, let’s say if you have a reading list, and you are requiring students to purchase books and they have to have physical books, when do the grants that help them purchase books come out? If you’re setting them a text that they need to buy and they need to be reading before that grant comes out, they can’t afford the book, that’s why they’re getting the grant. So maybe adjusting when you’re going to start assigning texts that they need to purchase and front loading things like articles that maybe you can give online or things that you can print and give out to them. Simple adjustment, doesn’t call anyone out, but takes into account that some of the students in the class might very well only be able to buy books as soon as that grant comes through on the first Friday of the semester. In other cases, things like having policies that allow students to step out of the class in the event that something becomes triggering for them, not knowing if students have certain types of traumatic experiences in their histories. So saying, “If you need to leave for 15 minutes, step out of the room for 15 minutes, come back in, we have resources available to you.” Things like having, on the campus itself… so this isn’t so much controlled by faculty, but administratively… food kitchens where students who might be experiencing difficulties being able to purchase food, where they can go and get items that they need. Things like professional development workshops on campus. So students who are the first in their families to be graduating college might be the first in their families to be going for these professional level careers. Do they know how to choose a suit that fits? That might sound real simple to some people, like, “Yeah, you don’t want gapping around the pockets, and the shirt has to fall in a certain way.” But if this isn’t your family, you have no idea, and it can be very intimidating to ask for help. So does the campus offer those kinds of services? If they offer professional level clothing, do they offer the other part of it that maybe shows students these other skills that we take for granted as everybody having, but that a lot of students might not have, and so being able to access that, and in a way that doesn’t call them out, that doesn’t act as if it’s charity, but instead, this is part of the experience, and everyone should have it.

Rebecca: Really appreciate, as a designer, you talking about the difference between designing for equity in the s tart versus retrofitting something that was definitely not designed with equity in mind at the back end, right? Those experiences are different, our ability to create equitable experiences are actually quite different under those different circumstances. One of the things that you were just talking about points to the need that faculty have to understand some of the other systems that exist that are outside of the curriculum or outside of their subject matter, like the timing of when grants might be available, or how financial aid works,[LAUGHTER] because those actually have significant impact on the experiences of students at our institutions, and we can make design choices that think about some of those things that are in place, that maybe aren’t as easy to change, or they certainly aren’t going to change at the same speed [LAUGHTER] that we can adapt or adjust a class. I really appreciate that thought. Can you talk a little bit more about, maybe the responsibility faculty might want to take for better understanding some of these other systems, so that they can account for things like this?

Roberta: So it’s a hard balance, right? Because, on the one hand, and this is something I’m very cognizant of, I have curriculum that I have to teach, and I have to make sure that I deliver it accurately and responsibly. It’s easy to get lost in that and we have all of these other pressures. Because teaching alone isn’t it. There’s teaching, there’s service, there’s scholarship, and there’s conferences, and sometimes you get to the end of the day and spend 13 hours, and you know that there’s more [LAUGHTER] for the next day. So I think part of this is not so much adding to the plate, but instead shifting. And I’ve been hearing about the use of the language of shifting. How are we just going to shift over rather than asking faculty to have these extra heavy loads when there’s already so much on the plate? And I think that part of that can be done using mechanisms that we already have. So things like academic affairs retreats, professional development workshops that our campuses offer, even when we go to conferences or things like that. But having people, instead of saying, “Here’s a list of things you have to put on your syllabus,” and then moving on, having opportunities for, for instance, financial aid to come in and meet with faculty, and maybe it’s more of there’s a lot of us, [LAUGHTER] there’s few of them, there’s more of us. So having them come to like department meetings and actually walking us through when certain things will hit and when they don’t. I know about, for instance, a grant for books, because my first semester on campus, students told me about it. Before that, and I know we’re not supposed to do this, but I would just say, “You need a copy of the reading? Here’s my book. Do what you need to do. Just give me the book back before class, so that I have time to prepare.” And you know, they’d be photocopying or taking photos with their phones. But then they told me about this grant, and I was like, “Well, that’s essential to know.” [LAUGHTER] If you can’t buy the book, you can’t buy the book. So then looking at library resources, showing them how to get access to books from interlibrary loan if they’re like, “I genuinely cannot afford this book.” What can you get through Interlibrary Loan? What sort of resources do we have? So having workshops like that with faculty can be very helpful, but it has to be timed. So, you know, we have due dates as well. So having syllabi available by a certain date means that we have to be thinking about spring semester like the year before. So it’s about finding those timings that work with faculty schedules and requirements from the campus itself, and offering those and also, I think the importance of professional development time for faculty, I think across the nation, is kind of hard to find time for right now, but it’s a necessity. If we can sit down and say, “Okay, here are the actual skills that I want them to have? What are the variety of fun things that go along with those?” If I want them to be considering how to find an argument in a poem, I am not a technology person, so bear with me, can I have them distill it down to a meme? (I just learned about memes not too long ago.) And then, “How do I get them to work with that?” So this is using their own sensibilities, drawing from their own cultural knowledges, their own backgrounds, thinking through what sort of resources they have available to them. They’re still going to know how to be able to distill an argument. They’re still going to be able to identify and articulate what is it this person wants me to get and how are they trying to persuade me, but doing so in a manner that allows them to cultivate their own knowledges and not saying, “Well, this is the only way to do it. This is the only option that we have.” But instead offering these varieties. Now, as an English professor, I am always going to end up coming back to the written word, and that’s okay, there’s nothing wrong with that. But what are the flexibilities that are available around that? That students can engage? What different angles can we offer for students to come into the conversation from, while still holding standards and working with students to find that they are very capable of achieving these things? I’m thinking of the book, Nuyorganics, and it’s this brilliant book… it came out a few years back… but about having students cultivate their cultural knowledges and organic intellectualism, combining that to create different types of assignments in the classroom that then move forward. But we need time to be able to do this. And so, in a perfect world, we would have time to do it. So maybe this is something then, that individual departments can start thinking through. If this matters to us, if it’s not a token gesture that we want academic excellence for all, let’s create times and some of the stuff that’s mandatory, like meetings or whatever the case may be, where everybody gets together and actually have somebody come in as a guest and speak to us about some of the things that they’re doing that work, or maybe some processes for finding things that might work for them. I think key to this all too, though, is that it’s not about not making standards or things for students, but instead helping them cultivate the very real skills that they need for success. And that’s part of the conversation too and I think going back to the question about students finding ways to make it through college versus some who are not, this is part of that whole complex system. What resources do they have, and do they know how to, from their own lens and from their own styles, engage these? That there isn’t just one way of going about things or one way of doing it that’s correct, but all these varieties that are available to them.

John: As Rebecca noted, we’re lucky to live in a state where there is still support for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and attempts to try to make things work better for all students, but we do see a number of states that are imposing some really serious restrictions on what people are allowed to teach. They’re redefining our history, redefining science, and limiting what can be talked about in terms of many issues. What advice would you give to faculty who are trying to help students in that environment?

Roberta: I think the first thing would be, know the law and not the law as you’re being told it’s the law, but what is the actual letter of the law. If you know the letter of the law, if you know what it actually says, and you have a cohort of people that similarly know what it actually says, you can make decisions about your response rather than being caught in the moment and having to react. And I think that one struggle people are having is that they’re being put into situations where they’re having to react on the spot. And it’s not that their reactions are bad. They’re human, and what they’re responding to [LAUGHTER] in many cases just doesn’t make sense. I will give them that. But we also have to acknowledge that the paradigm has shifted, and we cannot respond the way that we thought it worked when it’s already shifted. We have to know what’s happening now and what is our relationship to that. I heard a statistic recently about people’s desire for their children to go to college and get degrees, and, you know, it’s lower than it was 20 years ago. That’s about faith in education and faith in the learning process, and in states where people seem to be vilified for wanting to give education books, being thrown away, it’s hard to maintain faith in the very things that we know in our core are right, which is that you don’t discriminate against people because of their race, their ethnicity, their socioeconomic backgrounds, their gender, their sexuality, and disability. And we’re thinking about different ways of knowing. We know this. And I think sometimes the small group of people that are shouting the loudest seem to be the ones that make up the majority, and they don’t. We’re seeing pushes against restriction of political thought. We’re seeing pushes that are being successful, against the attempt to restrict access of education to certain communities. The momentum has to maintain though, we can’t back down from it, and we have to also remember that we need to remind people we are supporting them, that we are here for them, that we will do what we can to support them, that we have not given up the fight, right? It’s not a death knell. It is a call to arms, and we are ready. We might need breaks. [LAUGHTER] Some of us might need to rest every now and again, and that’s totally fine, but we don’t give up. We keep going, and we will continue to be supportive.

John: In line with what you’ve just suggested, back in 1853, Theodore Parker said that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” And this is a quote that was frequently repeated by both Martin Luther King and by President Obama. Do you think we’re going to get back on a better path in the near future?

Roberta: There’s a quote from a book called King Solomon’s Mines, British fiction from I guess a century almost now, ago. And the book is very problematic, but there’s a line in it that goes, “Where there is life, there is hope.” And as much as the book is super messed up, and I’m not advocating anyone read it, I take great comfort in that, that we always have the ability to move forward, that if there is life anywhere, that we can always continue to cultivate the best parts of ourselves to make the world a better place and I think for a long time, we haven’t necessarily been encouraged to cultivate those best parts of ourselves, when you turn on the media, when you turn on the television, whatever it might be, seeing people screaming at each other, seeing people waving flags in each other’s faces, on both sides. And we think about like the polarization of the United States, this has gone on, you know, it’s older than me. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t those of us who really believe in education. That really believe in the ability to learn and grow and find those better parts of ourselves and be open to change. And change is not easy, change is difficult. It hurts. When we grow, we go through growth spurts and our bodies hurt. We grow teeth and our gums hurt, but it’s okay, because on the other side of that, growth is something very real. And right now, we are in a space of growth, and I turn to Gloria Anzaldúa here, because I think about the path to “conocimiento,” which means the path to coming to consciousness. And it goes up, it goes down, it goes left, it goes right, it spirals, and sometimes you think you’ve got it, and nope, you’re right at the beginning again. But if you can engage the process, you will start coming into these movements of complexity and being able to figure out new realities for yourself. I do think that things will get better. I don’t know how long it will take. I would like to say tomorrow, and maybe for some of us it will be, apparently, the planets just realigned themselves last week, and I take great hope in that. [LAUGHTER] But genuinely, I do think that there is hope for the future. When I hear some of the things that my students talk about… I just went through midterms, and seeing some of these midterms just renews your faith in everything, because you’re like, “Thank you. Thank you for believing you could do something that was different. Thank you for trusting the process and yourself enough to engage in this, even if it was new and scary and different.” It’s okay to cultivate those parts of their imaginations and creativity in combination with critical thinking. I think one of the major attacks right now is on critical thinking skills. We don’t give up on those. We hunker down with them. That might make us dangerous, but it also means that we know how to ask good questions, and it’s going to be those people who are able to ask good questions that are going to lead us into the future. I think about Brenda Marie Osbey. She was the poet laureate of Louisiana a few years back, and I got to meet her one time, and she said, “the job of the artist isn’t to answer the question. The job of the artist is to ask them and then to follow these questions through all of their different pathways and find all these nuances and things that we weren’t thinking about or things that we weren’t considering and bringing those to light.” Yeah, that’s it, that ability to think, the ability to create, the ability to continue moving. We do have a lot of pain that we haven’t dealt with, centuries in the making that we do have to deal with, and maybe that’s part of why we’re in this moment now. But that doesn’t mean we can’t come out the other side of it. We just have to have faith that there is another side of it, and I genuinely believe there is.

Rebecca: Given that John has already asked about your crystal ball. I’ll ask a follow up. We always end by asking, what’s next? It could be personally, professionally, the book, any way you want to spin it.

Roberta: So I have a book chapter coming out in a collection called ¿Y Yo También?, and it’s about Latinas and the Me Too movement. And it’s got creative pieces in it, it’s got scholarly works in it, but it’s designed so that anyone can read it, which is awesome, because sometimes we have these very jargon laden conversations about people’s very real experiences that can make it hard for everyone to join in the conversation. So I love this book. It’s coming out with Rutgers University Press this coming fall. The faculty member is in New York, her name is Melissa, and again, coming out this fall. I have a second monograph that I just finished called, But is it sexy? that looks at representation of eroticism in Puerto Rican women’s literature, which was incredible to get to research and write and I’m looking forward to that. Moving forward, I’m going to be presenting at NADOHE, which is the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed at the end of March. And then next spring, I get to teach poetry, which I’m excited about. And then this semester, I have two more guest artists coming as part of a larger series. Denise Chávez will be joining us, as well as Melissa Rivero at the end of the semester. So these are all major moments of excitement, and I very much look forward to.

John: Well, thank you. It was great talking to you, and I hope your book makes an impact on people.

Roberta: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Rebecca: Yeah, thank you for all your work.

[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]

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]

432. Inside Mindful Teaching

In challenging times, it is very easy for educators to be distracted from what we value most in our work. In this episode, Roberta Schnorr joins us to discuss how mindfulness practice can help us bring our authentic selves to our classrooms.

 Roberta was, until her retirement, one of our colleagues at SUNY Oswego. Her professional career spanned 40 years, including nearly a decade in public schools, over 25 years directing a graduate program in SUNY Oswego’s School of Education, and she has been a mindfulness practitioner for 20 years. She has taught and facilitated mindfulness in community settings, including a prison and a public library.

Show Notes

  • Schnorr, Roberta (2026). Inside Mindful Teaching. Mantra Books
  • Roberta Schnorr’s website
  • Apps/websites recommended by Roberta:
    • Insight Timer – many choices, with an option to save favorites. Use the search tool to see topics in the library. Perhaps search for types, like Breath or Body Scan or Anxiety. A few to search for and try out: Relaxing your Mind (9 minute guided breath practice), Getting Grounded (15 min) by Kaira Jewel Lingo, A Pause for Presence (11 minutes) by Tara Brach, Basic Body Scan and Breath practice (11 minutes) by Tara Brach, Safe Place Imagery (10 min) by Dan Roberts.
    • Plum Village App – (Offered by Plum VIllage, Buddhist community, but most practices are focused on Mindfulness with secular language). Suggestions to explore: Meditations→Deep Relaxation→15 minute offering from Sr True Dedication, Meditations→Guided Meditations→Short Meditations→Mindfulness of the body by Br Phap Dung, Meditations→Guided Meditations→scroll down to More Guided Meditations→ Learning to be a Human Being by Br. Phap Dung or What’s Not Going Wrong? by Kaira Hewel Lingo
    • Tara Brach’s Website – free web-based guided practice
    • Happier Meditation (formerly known as 10% Happier) – Dan Harris – paid app
    • Calm – paid app
    • Sean Fargo’s Top Guided Meditations

Transcript

John: In challenging times, it is very easy for educators to be distracted from what we value most in our work. In this episode, we discuss how mindfulness practice can help us bring our authentic selves to our classrooms.

[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 Roberta Schnorr. Roberta was, until her retirement, one of our colleagues at SUNY Oswego. Her professional career spanned 40 years, including nearly a decade in public schools, over 25 years directing a graduate program in SUNY Oswego’s School of Education, and she has been a mindfulness practitioner for 20 years. She has taught and facilitated mindfulness in community settings, including a prison and a public library. Welcome, Roberta.

Roberta: Thank you so much for having me, John and Rebecca. I’m just delighted to be here.

John: We’re happy to talk to you. It’s been a while. We’re glad to reconnect.

Roberta: Yeah, it’s great to catch up.

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

Roberta: You bet. Yogi ginger tea, my favorite, in my favorite tea mug with the reminder from Lennon and McCartney to let it be.

Rebecca: Love it.

John: Very nice.

Rebecca: How about you, John?

John: I am drinking a ginger peach green tea today.

Rebecca: I am drinking an Awake tea right now.

John: …which is probably good. [LAUGHTER] It’s been a long day for you.

Rebecca: It has been.

John: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your forthcoming book, Inside Mindful Teaching, which will be available around the time when the podcast is released. What do you mean by mindfulness, to set the stage for the discussion?

Roberta: Thanks for asking. It’s a term that’s become quite common this day and age, and I think it has many meanings. By mindfulness, I mean that I want to cultivate both my attention, to be attentive to my actual life and my intention of how I want to be in this life, it really is a way of seeing and being in life. Mindfulness practices help me to grow my presence and to notice when I’m present or when I’m maybe stuck in a story about the past, whether it was 10 minutes ago or 10 years ago, reliving a meeting I just came from, or planning too much and getting caught in worries about the future, and bring myself back to the direct experience of this moment right now. So that’s kind of my working definition.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about the origin story of your book and how your own mindful practice maybe has led to or influenced your book.

Roberta: Yeah, so let me start with my own practice, because that was the piece that came first. Like many people that choose to pursue a mindfulness practice, mine was prompted by a period of deep suffering and confusion. Who was Bobbi before mindfulness, who was Roberta? I was fast paced. I was an over functioner. I was productive and rewarded for it. I was over scheduled. I focused on doing, doing, doing and to hold that all up, I was really focused on being in control of a lot of pieces. When I was nearly 50, something happened, and something came up that disrupted that, and I fell apart. It was really an emotional falling apart, and I couldn’t operate from that anymore, and I felt helpless, I felt terrified, I felt very ungrounded. So I did the wise thing and I went to therapy. And during that period, I began meditating on my own based on some reading I was doing, and within just a couple of weeks, I was experiencing benefits of the practice. I wasn’t cured by any means, but I would experience after a mindfulness setting, when, for me, there were no apps, I was just like trying to learn to sit with my breath for five minutes, and then 10, and then 15, and I would get some relief. So I kept doing it, and then I began having some experiences of shared mindfulness practice in yoga classes at that time. And I co-started, co-began a local mindfulness group that meets weekly. We still meet weekly, and had benefit from that kind of shared energy of mindfulness with others as well, and went on some retreats. So those were the beginnings of my mindfulness practice, birthed during this time of deep confusion and suffering. It’s interesting, when that question comes up, I realize now that the seeds of this book were also being watered during that period, that very early period, although I had no intention of writing a book. I was surviving my experience, and one element was my therapy. While my therapist used different language, he didn’t talk about mindfulness, essentially, he was inviting me to be more mindful in my life. He was inviting me to carry out what he called experiments in different spheres of my life, which were primarily my family life and my teaching, and asking me to see what happens if I just showed up without trying to be so in control. Could I just trust and show up and respond and see how that goes, see how people respond to that. That felt pretty vulnerable, but I really trusted this guy. He was a very skillful person, and he was helping me, so I was taking baby steps into these experiments, and interestingly, they went well sometimes. [LAUGHTER] So those were some of my very first explorations of mindfulness in my teaching. I hadn’t labeled it as that. At the same time, I was just beginning as part of a writing group. These were eight women, all professors in the School of Education. We still meet. We meet monthly to share writing, to respond to one another’s writing. And because I was in that writing group, I began processing my experience through writing. I’d never been a person who journaled, but I started to write short pieces, personal pieces, and journal type pieces about experiences I was having. And then I eventually became brave and floated one to writing group, and it was received so beautifully and so tenderly, and I felt so supported. That writing group became another place for me to share more of my authentic self and practice with this direction. And then, as I really made a commitment to focusing on mindfulness in my teaching, as I had done more healing, I continued to write about those experiences for myself. It was a way for me to pay attention to what was happening in my teaching and to document it. In a way, they were like field notes… I’m a qualitative researcher, just for me. And I would share those with writing group from time to time. And they were all teaching. They’re all professors, and they resonated with them, and they really encouraged me to keep going and just write and get it down, and eventually, really encouraged me to share it with a broader audience. So I would say you can blame writing group for the book. [LAUGHTER]

John: Writing groups can be very powerful experiences, very productive experiences in keeping people moving forward in their projects. So, as you adopted mindfulness practices, how did that begin to affect your teaching and your interaction with students and classes?

Roberta: This is going to be a long answer. There’s a lot to this, and I really want to share some details in a bigger picture with our listeners. So first of all, there were observable ways that my teaching changed. I was slowed down in my body, my speech. There were more pauses in our class, still within a decent pace and flow as I facilitated. Our transitions were less rushed. We tried to do one thing at a time and then have some closure. There was more space for student interaction, for student sharing. But the biggest change is that mindfulness really reoriented my relationship to my teaching, and out of this long process of writing and reflection and experimentation, three insights emerged for me that I understand are essential for my mindful teaching. One is my professional knowledge, pedagogy skills that I bring to this teaching world, this teaching life. The second is this mindfulness of my inner experience. This is about the body sensations I experience, and the feelings and thoughts that can emerge from those. And the third is something I call intention, and intention is kind of a compass that helps me to stay on track with making my teaching offering a wholesome one. So I’d like to take a couple of minutes and unpack each of those for you and our listeners. So let me just begin with professional knowledge and skills. Like many professors, teachers, this was in the forefront. This was my identity. This was what I was bringing to my teaching. It dominated my relationship with my teaching in some good ways, but now I realize also with some limitations, I was pretty attached to people getting [LAUGHTER] my stuff. I was preparing special educators. It’s a complex professional role, and my question about what I was offering for myself was, what do special educators need to know, understand and be able to do to fulfill this complex role? There’s an overwhelming amount of stuff that good special educators need to know and be able to do. Mindfulness helped me to distill that, to figure out what are the essential elements for beginning special educators. On a practical level, I really cut back on how much we were doing each semester and in each class session. I cut down on the number of assessments that were required of students. These actions created more space and lessened the anxiety for myself and for my students. So that’s the first one. Professional knowledge and skills, still a piece of my framework, still important, my relationship to it has changed. The second element is mindfulness of my inner experience. Well, this was new territory that began emerging in therapy. This is about me first recognizing, just being aware of this feeling in my gut or my chest or whatever, this tension in my neck that’s arising, and be conscious of whatever feelings or thoughts might be rising out of that. Be able to recognize it, allow it to some degree, not push it down, run away from it, and then grow the ability to be able to be with it, to work with it without being overwhelmed, distracted, or to have my decision making derailed and be pulled around by my anxiety and operate out of more reactivity than thoughtful responses. These emotions still visit me regularly, I’m sorry to say, [LAUGHTER] but I can now be with them, and I have a different way of relating to them, and I have practices. So one thing is, I learned they come up in the flow of your teaching. I can’t stop and go sit on the cushion and take care of them for 10 minutes. So it’s just a matter of naming that anger and letting it know I’ll come back to you, but we’re going to move on with class. It’s not a cure. Sometimes I have to tolerate there’s still some discomfort as I continue to teach, but I’m not going to let that take over and then later on in the evening, or the next time I get some time to sit and practice, I can get curious about that maybe, and say, “Whoa. Where did that anger come from? What was that about?” I’m not sure it was about that student’s remark. What was that about? And try to have a deeper understanding. I’ll tell you one of the ways I talked about this. In 2013 I was diagnosed with cancer. My daughters were then college students, and one of the things I said to them, as we were all kind of experiencing fear, was: ‘Your job is not to control fear. Fear is going to be on the bus. You don’t have to try to kick fear off the bus or prevent fear from being on the bus, it’s going to be on the bus. Your job is, do not let fear drive the bus.” And that became our way of talking about allowing and managing this thing that was part of our experience. So this ability to be connected to my inner experience and grow some skillfulness with it is really foundational to my mindful teaching. The third element that I call intention, was the last thing to fully emerge in this process. The first part was there, and that is about this question, how do I want to impact my students, learning both now and in the future? And I had a pretty good idea about that, and that’s a broad question. That’s a broad intention. It’s more than graduating and getting a college degree. It’s more than getting a teaching certificate. It’s more than passing an exam. My response to that in my teaching work was, I want to prepare teachers who bring both the will and the skills to help all students maximize their capacities in inclusive learning environments. That’s a high order. Special educators serve a wide range of kids with a lot of learning characteristics, but that was the vision and intention, the aspiration and the vision I saw for my students as they were teaching in their teaching careers. Over time, part two emerged, and it was a different kind of question. That question was, “Who do I aspire to be as a teacher?” The first question was about, what I know when all the professional content and pedagogy and skills. This question was about being, so my response to that question, as I reflected on it and worked on it in this mindful teaching journey, became, “As a mindful educator, I want to make my best offering to all of my students from a place of presence and connection.” I think each educator has to sit with those questions themselves and figure out what they are specific to their teaching role and their aspiration. But for me, if I stay in touch with those questions, they become more internalized and they kind of serve as a compass. When I reflect before in my preparation, or during or after class or a meeting, an interaction, I know right away when things feel right, when I’ve mostly met my intention, and I know right away when I was not able to meet my intention, it feels wrong. So the question is, can I still bring some kindness to that, especially for myself, so that I can reflect and have some curiosity and maybe learn something from that? Were there conditions that I could have worked with better to be better prepared, or was my capacity low that day, whatever, and the very least, can I then also kind of let it go and move forward and not get stuck in it, so that I can begin anew. So those are the three elements of what I think are my real reorientation to my relationship with teaching as a result of bringing mindfulness, making it central to my teaching.

Rebecca: Can you talk about taking time to reflect on your practice and digest those feelings that you were having, and then intentionally making choices about reducing the content that you’re covering, thinking more about the essentials and having more room in a class, and then also thinking about all the things that you’ve identified. How did that really change your relationship with students? What does that look like? How is that different than it was before?

Roberta: Well, I think the first word that comes to mind is it’s more authentic. It’s more human. Our relationship has to be framed also about this professional journey they’re on, and the standards and things about that, but it’s not defined only by that. I think we can see each other’s humanity, and I can allow more of my humanity to be seen and to be felt in this relationship. I can be more open to seeing them as people and hearing what’s going on in their life. It doesn’t change the criteria for what we need to accomplish on this path professionally, but I think it can create a more nurturing and supportive relationship for teaching and learning, but just as people on a path together, on a journey together. It’s really helped me be a better mentor.

Rebecca: How does that differ from the relationship many faculty have with students that are not doing mindful teaching.

Roberta: Well, I can only speak for myself, because there was a long period I wasn’t doing mindful teaching. I’ll give you some examples of what it was like before. And before, I think that many students were nervous about how I might respond. Some students could go with this energy I was bringing, and they were comfortable, quite a few, really, but some students probably found me scary and unapproachable, I think maybe rigid. And I think those things probably were true, and they were really the experience of some students. I don’t think most, but I think some, and each student’s experience matters. As I began to practice intentionally with mindfulness, my perception is students felt safer. They could take more risks. They’re teachers, and now they’re going to be special ed teachers, and they were in our program in real teaching situations every semester, part time and then full time, and what I saw as I was bringing more mindfulness, is my candidates could bring more flexibility and more intentional decision making to their planning, to their teaching, to their reflection and adjustments to their teaching. There was less focus on what they thought I wanted and more trust in their growing professional capacities to make decisions and try them out and notice and shift, whether they worked perfectly or not.

John: Now you’ve talked a bit about how this has affected your teaching and interaction with students. How did the adoption of mindfulness practices affect the rest of your life?

Roberta: That’s another great question, because this isn’t something you do in one sphere, which is what happened to me. I was practicing mindfulness, and then there was like, “Oh, I think I need to bring this into my teaching.” [LAUGHTER] Like, that’s part of my life. And a funny thing was, I was writing in this chapter, and I told one of my daughters about that, she said, here’s a title for your chapter, “Damn it, now I have to change my teaching.” [LAUGHTER] To have integrity, I needed to make a shift. But how has it changed me overall? For me, mindfulness practice has been deeply transformative, deeply transformative in every sphere of my life. Physically, I experience much more settled energy. My nervous system is regulated more of the time. I realize now I was like living in a pretty activated state most of the time, I think from the time I was a child, and that meant that I was always on the edge of my window and easily, kind of triggered into reactivity. So that physical calmness was really new to me, and it’s really quite pleasant. I mentioned being more authentic, and that’s absolutely been a gift of my mindfulness practice that comes more naturally to me. It comes naturally to me. I can allow more vulnerability, more tenderness with myself, first of all, which allows me to allow that with others, including students and colleagues. I experience a lot more stability, especially noticeable when life gets difficult, when the unexpected happens, when you get that information like, “Oh damn, the cancer’s back.” With my mindfulness practice that doesn’t have to be a total crisis. This, too is life. I can choose how to respond and participate as I go forward. So there’s also been a shift in how I view both my teaching and whatever it is I’m doing. It’s not always called formal work at this stage, and that is that I learned first in my teaching to shift and view it as an offering, an offering where I could let go, really practice letting go of how I might be perceived, how my offering might be judged or perceived, and just focus on it as an offering and the conditions that I could bring to make my best offering. So today’s an example where I’m practicing with offering. You two have done a lot of podcasts. I don’t do podcasts. This is my first, so I was experiencing some anxiety as this date came closer, and I got myself back to like, “Oh, it’s like my class.” Like, what’s my intention? My intention today is just like my class. I want to make my best offering to our listeners and to you from a place of presence and connection. I know what I need to do to prepare for that, the conditions I have control over. So I made some extra space yesterday and today. You were very helpful to me in preparing for the expectations, for the conversation and the context, but it was really my job to take care of myself and do more mindfulness practice, and to prepare with both the content and my energies, and to use some resources to get ready to take care of the things that might make this the best offering I could make today. It’s very freeing to me to have this shift of operating from offering, really freeing.

Rebecca: We have frequent conversations with faculty, and we’ve had conversations on the podcast about people feeling overworked or overwhelmed or kind of a lot of things on their plate, many of the things that maybe you were describing earlier [LAUGHTER] and sometimes adopting a new practice or thinking about something new like mindfulness can seem overwhelming, or that it’s going to take time or effort from other things. Do you find that you’re spending less time on other activities so that you can focus on these efforts? Or can you talk a little bit about time?

Roberta: Yeah, time rules all [LAUGHTER] of us, doesn’t it? So first I will say that I think I am spending less time on some things, and I was even still in my teaching life, because mindfulness helped me get clearer on how to spend my time, and I didn’t have to overbook and say yes to everything. I could choose where I was going to be able to make the greatest impact with my offering, and I could see where sometimes I was spending time on things that took a lot of time but were unlikely to make much of an impact. I don’t mean in my classroom, but I mean extra things. There’s still never enough time. Life’s very full. But initially I did think of mindfulness kind of in that way, like real mindfulness meant I had to have time to, like, sit for 20 minutes every morning and do this formal practice, or 30 minutes, and I had to make time for these very formal ways of thinking about practicing mindfulness. But as I have grown in my practice, I understand it now as an orientation, a way of life for me, that’s become much more integrated. And there’s a lot of ways I was practicing even early on, and you mentioned some of these before we got started, Rebecca, about your trip over here to start this conversation. So when I would arrive at the school where I was teaching, it was a public school, and my candidates were going to be tutoring a student, and we stayed right on for a grad class. I would pull in, and I would try to stay in my car for just a minute and take a breath or two, no formal practice. And then when I got out of my car and gathered my bag of materials, I was pretty good at this. I tried to just take mindful steps from the car to the entrance to the school, they weren’t super slow, but to be aware of my feet on the ground, to drop out of my head, to look at the sky, to feel the temperature, to feel if there was a breeze, to notice if there was sunshine… once in a while. And just kind of get in my body for that transition from the last meeting, or whatever, to this teaching context, and try to stay out of going through the list of things in my head that we were going to do in class. So that’s one example. I’ve got to walk from the car to the building anyway. It can be a mindful three minute walk, and that’s practice. Another thing I do every morning is I get to have one cup of coffee a day, and I love my coffee, so that’s become part of my mindfulness practice. These days, I sometimes only have 5 or 10 minutes in the morning for formal practice, but I make my coffee as mindfully as I can. I pay attention to making my coffee. It’s the only cup of the day I want it to be, just right. [LAUGHTER] And I sit in my favorite chair with my coffee, and I do not open my phone, and I hold that cup with two hands, and I feel the warmth of the mug. I inhale the scent of the coffee. There’s a little cinnamon in it in this season. I take sips, I hold it in my mouth, and I really taste it and experience it. I sometimes congratulate myself on I’ve made a really fine cup of coffee today, and I drink my coffee as much as possible without reliving something that’s happened before or starting to go into my to do list for today. It’s a real practice, because my mind wants to go there. But if I can give myself five minutes just me and my coffee, that’s a little mini retreat. That’s part of my practice, even if I only get five minutes for a more formal, guided sit or walking. Yeah, often midday, during what’s kind of my lunch break, I have maybe a half hour to an hour and I put on an app with a 15 minute body scan. And I do not usually go to sleep, but I get in a comfy chair, recliner, and I listen to this body scan take me to attend the different parts of my body. It’s very relaxing, and when I’m finished, I feel like I’ve had a nap sometimes. So there are little things that I can do through my day that are not about scheduling extra time. Those are a few examples.

Rebecca: I mean, you should have maybe drank tea in the morning, but… [LAUGHTER]

Roberta: Maybe. I switch to tea for the rest of the day.

Rebecca: Ok.

Roberta: I drink a lot of tea.[LAUGHTER] If this was a morning recording, there would have been coffee. [LAUGHTER]

John: …and that’s not uncommon on the podcast.

Rebecca: I know that’s why I had to tease. [LAUGHTER]

John: Now, you mentioned your work with your pre-service graduate students, and in your book, you share a bit about how you introduced some mindfulness practices to them. Could you talk a little bit about what you shared with them and how they reacted?

Roberta: Yeah, I’d love to talk about that. So first of all, slowly. I shared nothing with my students in terms of introducing them to practices, until I had cultivated a personal practice and I had really been exploring bringing it into my teaching for several years. I was a teacher. They were becoming teachers. The more I saw the benefits of it in my teaching, the more I felt compelled that this should be part of their preparation. The first reason was I wanted to support their well being. These are grad students that were, for the most part, doing daily subbing. They were getting up and teaching from seven or eight in the morning till three or four, and then they were coming to grad class from 3:30 to 7:30 or something, with their tutoring to seven. It was a long haul. They were stressed. They were tired. They were anxious. There’s a lot of anxiety anyway in life, but being a grad student for me was also kind of a peak time. So I knew that mindfulness was a way that I could support some of their well being and maybe relieve some of that stress. I also did share a little tiny bit about how they might explore it in their teaching, because they were actively teaching. And mindfulness is always mindfulness of something. And the thing we shared was about teaching. So here’s what it looked like in the last few years, and this evolved over five, six years, from me sharing a little bit to then getting clearer on how I could be more structured and share a bit more. So as I mentioned, the context was graduate class in this public school, they arrive, there’s an hour of tutoring a student that they stay with for the whole semester. I’m on site, supervising and supporting. Then we come back together as a class and have our graduate class in the same space. So the tutoring program did not start our first week of classes. So the second graduate class, I spent most of that class as kind of a mindfulness workshop with them. I facilitated and guided them through a number of experiences with mindfulness practices, but we did body practice, we did breath practice, we did mindful walking, we did mindful eating, we did mindful listening, give them tastes of different things and process a little bit, and sort of giving them a menu or two for like, where were their preferences and what was working for them. And then I invited them at the end of that class to practice 10 minutes a day, five days if they could, in the coming week. And we were using Blackboard at the time for course management, and I asked them to write just a little bit about their 10 minute practice each day, so I could tell if they wrote that wrote that day on Blackboard, and I intentionally didn’t respond to their daily postings about their experience. I wanted it to be their experience, so I waited and read them at the end of the week, and then we got back together on Monday for our next grad class, and we spent probably 20 minutes sharing and talking about their experiences, which were overall quite insightful and positive for them. This was all ungraded. It was very clear in the syllabus. All ungraded. Everybody did it. Then we got on with the business of the next day we had kids coming. We got on with the business the rest of that class of like, all right, what assessments are we doing tomorrow? What are you going to learn about this student as a reader so you can start teaching? And then the next day, when they started tutoring, eventually it became our practice every single time to first meet as a group for five minutes of guided mindfulness practice, which I facilitated. And then it was like, have a great tutoring session, see you in an hour. That was what we did. And then I asked them twice during the semester to write me like just two pages maybe, something about your mindfulness and your teaching. What are you noticing? The other thing I did do the first few weeks was I shared a few examples of my experience of bringing it into my teaching with some school age learners I worked with, and really inviting them to notice their inner experience. When does the anxiety come up? What does it feel like in your body? Can you be more in tune to noticing the anxiety coming up before you’re feeling overwhelmed or frozen, and then giving them a few go to practices that they could use in the moment. So you’re in the flow of a lesson with a seven year old, the lesson isn’t going as you planned, or the kid refuses to engage, the kid’s stuck and doesn’t know how to keep reading. You can’t remember what to do. So those strategies were like, take two or three breaths or look out the window. What’s the sky look like in this moment. Look back at your kid. Start again. One student I remember wrote about using self talk. I remembered Bobbi saying, like, “if I couldn’t remember what to do, just give them the word and nobody was going to die.” So these little things, but it tuned them in and in their reflections, I was just so so surprised that every single student could identify something that was relevant to mindfulness, and many of them wrote really rich examples of how they were kind of working it in their teaching and in their lives. The biggest and best surprise was a full year after I had them in the fall, this group of students went out for their full-time internship, and they didn’t have any more support around mindfulness from any other faculty member, and I wasn’t with them in the spring, and yet, in their journals that were required as part of their internship seminar, many of them were able to cite examples of how they were bringing mindfulness to their teaching in this very Intense, full-time placement. So, responses were overwhelmingly wonderful. And not every single student, but everybody kind of got what it was and tried it out, and many had these really wonderful responses. I just learned a lot from my students and their mindfulness journeys and the courage they brought to trying these things on in this kind of high-stakes graduate teaching and learning situation, it was very affirming for me, also, that the experiences I was having with some mindfulness in my teaching were supported by their efforts. It was also striking that they were getting this much preparation in mindfulness, and they were brand new teachers, and they could bring these brand new things together and do something with them, like, wow.

Rebecca: In some ways, you’re describing big changes in people’s lives where this intervention is occurring. Grad school is a big change for people, or being in the classroom for the first time with their students can be a big change. There’s a lot of changes and challenges that all teachers are facing currently. We’re thinking about, like changes in AI, thinking about political attacks on education. The list goes on, like a laundry list of things that are on all of our minds today. And I can imagine that like in that setting, adopting a mindful practice could help alleviate some of that challenge, if we can move in with this attention. Can you talk a little bit about the first steps someone might take if they want to adopt a practice like this?

Roberta: Yeah, so first of all, I’ll agree, we are indeed in very challenging times, and what I always kind of share with people now wasn’t available to me as a beginning practitioner, is I share apps. There’s a lot of resources now. There’s a lot of great apps, some are free, that have guided practices in many forms, and it’s a great support for beginning a little personal daily practice, even if you only have 5 or 10 minutes a day, either in the morning, midday, evening, whenever you’ve got that space. In fact, we could share a few suggestions in the show notes, if you like, for people to check out.

Rebecca: Yeah, that’d be great.

John: We always end each podcast episode with the question: what’s next?

Roberta: You know, for me, I really, really enjoy and find it very satisfying to share mindfulness practices because they’ve been so helpful to me, and especially in these times that are very unsettling for many of us, and lots of change and difficulty. So one way of doing that is sharing my experience in the book. And for people that are interested and have some mindfulness practice going, and are interested in trying to explore that in teaching. I hope my book will be a resource to them. And the other thing that I’ve been exploring that is less explicitly dissected in the book, because it came after, is trauma-informed practices, and how I’m really integrating more of that into my facilitation, and I’m about to start in a new study group to learn more about group nervous systems and our shared energies, and I think that’s going to be helpful to me, not only as a facilitator and a teacher, but every group I’m in, including my family.

Rebecca: So it’s great to keep learning, right?

Roberta: Yeah, it sure is.

John: And trauma-informed pedagogy, I think, is especially valuable in these times.

Roberta: Sure thing.

John: Well, thank you. We really appreciate you joining us, and it was great to talk to you again.

Roberta: It’s been my great pleasure to talk with you, to meet you Rebecca, and to have this opportunity to reconnect with my Oswego family and beyond. So thank you so much for this podcast offering.

Rebecca: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

427. Open Exchanges in College Classrooms

Ideally, college classrooms provide students with a comfortable but challenging environment in which diverse ideas and viewpoints are openly exchanged; the reality they experience, though, is often quite different. In this episode, David Laibson joins us to discuss how Harvard University is attempting to identify and address barriers to this ideal.

David is the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics and a Faculty Dean of Lowell House. He has published dozens of heavily cited articles on a wide range of topics, including behavioral economics, self-regulation, behavior change, household finance, and aging. David is a Research Associate in the Aging, Asset Pricing, and Economic Fluctuations Working Group at the National Bureau of Economic Research, member of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and serves on numerous advisory boards. He has received Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa award and a Harvard College Professorship in recognition of his high quality teaching. David is also a co-author of popular textbooks on introductory economics and  a co-editor of the Handbook of Behavioral Economics.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Ideally, college classrooms provide students with a comfortable but challenging environment in which diverse ideas and viewpoints are openly exchanged; the reality they experience, though, is often quite different. In this episode, we discuss how one institution is attempting to identify and address barriers to this ideal.

[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 David Laibson. David is the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics and a Faculty Dean of Lowell House. He has published dozens of heavily cited articles on a wide range of topics, including behavioral economics, self-regulation, behavior change, household finance, and aging. David is a Research Associate in the Aging, Asset Pricing, and Economic Fluctuations Working Group at the National Bureau of Economic Research, member of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and serves on numerous advisory boards. He has received Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa award and a Harvard College Professorship in recognition of his high quality teaching. David is also a co-author of popular textbooks on introductory economics and a co-editor of the Handbook of Behavioral Economics. It’s really an impressive list of things there. Welcome David.

David: Thank you. Glad to be here.

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

David: Well, I don’t actually have my tea cup with me right now, but I do have my preferred tea on hand [LAUGHTER] because I knew you would ask. So my favorite tea right now is a Korean matcha called Osulloc, and it comes in a very handy format where I can basically take my matcha tea bag, drop it in my water and have my lovely cup of tea, but I don’t honestly have one right now. [LAUGHTER] So, I thought you were gonna ask about what I like to drink, as opposed to what I’m drinking.

John: And I am drinking a Twinings oolong tea today.

Rebecca: Oh, nice. Must be the end of the semester is getting a little intense with the black teas, huh?

John: It is. [LAUGHTER] I think this is my third or fourth cup today. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: I have a decaf Irish breakfast this afternoon.

John: That’s the difference being in the administration. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: I have about a week, have about a week. [LAUGHTER]

David: Well, good luck reaching the endline.

John: So, we’ve invited you here today to discuss your work as co-chair of the Classroom Social Compact Committee, which we had read about in an October 6 article in The New York Times. Can you tell us a little bit about this committee?

David: Sure, the committee did most of its work in 2024 and issued its findings report in 2025, early in the year. Maya Jasanoff, another faculty member here at Harvard, is the co-chair of the committee, and our report was both a description of the state of affairs here at Harvard and a set of recommendations for addressing many of the problems that we uncovered or documented. The committee was charged by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean, Hopi Hoekstra, and the charge, I won’t read the whole thing, but it included describing the nature and purpose of the faculty of arts and science classroom and developing practical recommendations for engendering a vibrant learning environment in the classroom.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about some of the primary issues that were raised in the report?

David: So, there’s a long standing recognition that the classrooms here have a aspirational role to play, that perhaps we’re falling short on on many dimensions, and let me review some of them that were discussed and documented in the course of writing our report. So, one thing that we’re concerned about is the degree to which students come to the classroom not completely comfortable sharing what they think when they raise their hand, if they raise their hand. There’s a fair degree of self-censorship, an extent to which people, for various reasons, may not feel comfortable speaking up. It may be that they’re shy and don’t want to say something that might be wrong or that they don’t want to say something that may be viewed critically by other students. And so one aspect of the classroom that is problematic is the degree to which people are not comfortable bringing authentic voices into the classroom setting. Another significant issue is the degree to which our students have, in some cases, focused energies outside the classroom, to the extent that it actually undermines the academic center of their lives here. Now I don’t want to imply that that’s the fault of our students. I think in many cases, that’s a reality that our faculty are not creating classroom experiences that are sufficiently stimulating and therefore engaging our students’ interest. And so I think the un-centering of the classroom, which has been occurring for decades here, is a two-sided phenomenon. On the one hand, it’s students that are focused elsewhere. On the other hand, it’s faculty that may not be creating the most stimulating and exciting environment intellectually in the classroom. And I think we’ve all agreed, unfortunately, that that’s okay, and this report is part of reversing that consensus and reasserting the principles that I think we would agree with, but haven’t always been our practice here at Harvard.

John: And I think what you’re describing is something that we’ve seen at pretty much all institutions, to some extent. But one of the things that really impressed me about the report was the extent to which you gathered data and the ways in which you gathered data, because that could be a useful model for other institutions as well. Could you talk a little bit about what types of data you gathered and the process of assembling that?

David: So we did a year of data gathering, and as you point out, it was pretty aggressive and extensive. We wanted to make sure that we really had our finger on the pulse of the many different communities and the many different stakeholders, so we held well over 30 group listening sessions, and then I would say, hundreds of one-on-one listening sessions, where you sit down with a student and have a one- hour lunch and get a full download from them in the most confidential setting, where it’s just a one-on-one conversation, as opposed to someone volunteering an opinion with 40 other people in the room, which can be a little daunting. We also consulted with colleagues and consulted with many different committees that sit here in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences that oversee our curriculum. So the Educational Policy Committee, the Graduate Policy Committee, the General Education Committee, a place called The Bok center, that is a sort of mentorship for teachers unit, and we talked with department chairs. We talked with divisional deans. So we really went out there and gathered a lot of data. In addition, we looked at 11 different surveys that were fielded either by us or by other groups inside Harvard, measuring undergraduate opinions, graduate opinions, faculty opinions, alumni opinions, and that is the maximally confidential space for people to give answers, because a lot of these surveys are done without any ability to identify the respondent other than knowing that they are, in fact, a Harvard affiliate, because they got into the survey using a Harvard ID. So we looked at five undergraduate surveys, three graduate student surveys, one faculty survey and two alumni surveys, and by that point, we had a lot of data that would enable us to, I think, have a fairly precise understanding of at least what the community thought and what they were willing to share with us in these different formats.

Rebecca: So, you mentioned the self-censorship issue that bubbled up across all of these different audiences that you surveyed and collected data from. What are some of the consequences in terms of student intellectual development?

David: So there’s a lot of adverse consequences. One is the obvious problem that students don’t feel, in many cases, that they belong, because their perspective is not welcome, and that, I think, undermines their ability to thrive. They’re also not developing the critical skill of learning how to speak publicly. If they’re constantly suppressing their voice in these public settings, and the classroom setting, then that’s a skill that isn’t being nurtured. I think perhaps one of the most important problems with a classroom where people don’t feel that they can say what they really think is that there’s this false impression of consensus when in fact there are enormously divergent viewpoints. They’re just invisible because most people that are speaking are speaking in a relatively narrow domain with respect to maybe the most sensitive issues. So when you have a classroom that is a place of self-censorship, and I want to emphasize many classrooms don’t have that problem. But when you have a classroom where people are self- censoring, you get a false impression of homogeneity. You get a set of skills that are not being developed. You get many students feeling that they’re just there on a performative basis, and it undermines the whole intellectual enterprise. We’re here to learn and really compare ideas while all that’s out the window when you have the impression, and again, this is only in some classrooms, that there’s a kind of acceptable viewpoint, and anything that sits outside that viewpoint you better keep quiet about. But I want to emphasize, a lot of people think that the way the law is laid down is through faculty and graduate student teaching fellows. Indeed, the students told us that mostly they were concerned about what their fellow students thought. So, if anyone has the impression [LAUGHTER] that this is a sort of monoculture problem that is driven by or primarily by instructors, I want to, right from the start, clarify that overwhelmingly, the students said that in many cases, it was fellow students and their judgments and what would happen after class in the dining halls that they were most concerned about with respect to saying something that might be unpopular in class, and not the bad grade they might get. Indeed, I was quite happy to hear that the faculty were the people that the students were the least concerned about. So I think there’s more concern about some of the graduate students that are grading their papers in a big class, but especially there’s concern about their fellow students. Now that’s not to say that the faculty don’t have any role to play in changing this equilibrium. Definitely, the faculty need to change norms and need to lead with their voice this new approach to a classroom where more perspectives are sought out and encouraged and welcomed, but it is, I think, important to emphasize that it’s not just the faculty that are contributing to self- censorship, it is fear of what other students are going to say in the dining hall after class.

John: One of the more striking statistics there was that in one of the surveys, 33% of Harvard’s college students reported that they felt free to express personal feelings and belief, as you’ve noted, a lot of students are self-censoring. However, there were some other statistics based on individual course evaluations that suggested a much lower rate. How was that explained in the report, that discrepancy between the reports from seniors and the individual course summaries.

David: Yeah. So just to highlight the tension, if you ask people about their overall academic experience, only a third say they were comfortable speaking openly, but when you ask them about the individual course that they just took, so ask them about one course, and you get about 90% saying that they’re comfortable speaking openly. So clearly, what we’re learning here is that this is not a problem that people are experiencing everywhere, all the time. It’s a problem they’re experiencing in some places. So when you ask people, as they’re leaving after four years, what was it like? Did you feel the need to self-censor? They say, “Yeah, sometimes.” But when you ask them about the class they took last semester on 19th century history of Brazil, they say, “No, actually, in that class, I did not feel the need to self-censor.” So, the distinction, I think that’s important to highlight, is that it’s not a problem that’s occurring all the time for our students. It’s a problem that’s occurring frequently enough that it’s a real concern, but not so frequently that it’s affecting every curricular experience. And I think that speaks to a couple issues. First, the problem is somewhat contained. But secondly, there probably is a degree of intellectual self- segregation that is contributing to the sense of, “Well, it’s not a problem in my class.” Sometimes I ask students, “Well, what happened in your class? What was the curriculum?” And they’ll describe a relatively homogeneous student body in that class. And then I’m not surprised that if the classes has advertised itself as having a particular viewpoint, and the students get that message early on, and the students that want that viewpoint stay, and the students that don’t want that viewpoint move on, you can easily see how people might say, “Yeah, in that class that I took, I had no trouble saying what was on my mind.” But then one realizes that in parentheses, that’s because the class ended up attracting a relatively homogeneous set of perspectives in the student body. And so I do think all of these considerations make it challenging to know exactly how deep the problem is. I definitely think we can over-exaggerate it if we just cite the 33% number of people that feel comfortable speaking their mind. But I think we can also kind of over minimize it [LAUGHTER] by saying if you look at individual courses, 90% of the students say that in the particular course they are evaluating right now, they feel free to speak their mind. We don’t know how much of that is a kind of self- segregation into curricular environments that they feel comfortable in.

Rebecca: What are some strategies, maybe both structural or also within a class, to work against this?

David: Well, I think you start with awareness as an instructor, I think instructors don’t realize the degree to which their students feel pressure from other students to accept a kind of student-endorsed viewpoint. And I think faculty are trying very hard to have real conversations in their classrooms, and are often working to prevent their own viewpoint from becoming, in some sense, the only acceptable viewpoint. They’re not necessarily jumping out on day one and saying, “This is what I think,” they’re creating space for student perspectives. They’re working hard on that front, but they don’t realize that it’s not just that students are trying to glom on to what the faculty member thinks, it’s what the other students think that is a real issue. And so I think faculty need to be explicit in saying, “Hey, in this classroom environment, we really encourage diverse perspectives, and I’m going to be thoughtful in drawing them out.” And so I’ll give you examples of how we do that in my class. You probably have both have the experience of that wonderful student who is always quick to get their hand up right away, and if we always call the students who get their hands up in the first five seconds when we ask a question, or when we open it up for questions, we tend to get a relatively homogeneous set of answers because it’s the same students that we’re privileging. They’re the students who get their hands up the quickest. And if we call them, once there are a few hands up, well, we’re going to over sample the same students. And so one thing that we do in my classes, we, by that, I mean me and my co instructors… we try to let the question settle and not pick someone immediately. And I have something called the 10-second rule, where once I ask a question, I’ll count to 10 in my head, quietly, and only then, when I’ve allowed 10 seconds to pass, do I finally start picking from the hands that are up. And at that point there’s a lot of hands up, and I have my pick of students, and I can go for students that have not been contributing so far in that lecture, or so far, even in that semester. So I love the ability to bring in this far more diverse set of student voices by just giving them time to get a question together. And I think there’s lots of ways that faculty can launch a more diverse conversation by not allowing a small set of voices to become the dominant voices, and by looking for opinions that lean a different way than the first opinion you got. So you can ask a question, and some student says, “Well, I think A,” and you can ask, “Well, who thinks not A?” And then you can draw in the range of opinions, rather than allowing the first student to say, “I think A” and then the second student to say, “I think A too,” and then the third student “I think A three,” and everyone thinks a. And that’s pretty much the herding effect you don’t want. And you can be very intentional in creating an anti-herding effect by only asking for questions or perspectives that create the heterogeneity that you’re trying to engender, rather than allowing students to herd on the first answer that comes out of the room. So I think there’s a range of strategies, and they had to be launched on day one to get the equilibrium right in the classroom. Students need to hear the message early on and hear it repeatedly, that this is a place where we’re looking to hear from different perspectives, and we’re not trying to all agree on something. I am very disappointed when I hear [LAUGHTER] faculty telling me about how much agreement there is in their classroom and how excited they are by that. I think when everyone’s agreeing on something, it’s probably a mundane thing, or they’re observing false agreement. There’s enormous disagreement among our students, and if you know how to draw it out, you’ll get it. And if you get everyone to agree together that something is true, well, I ask you, what does everyone agree on that isn’t something that’s utterly trivial.

John: One of the things I’ve done in my classes is I do a lot of polling, but also I have a Catchbox, one of those little cubes with a microphone in it. And when I’m asking questions where there is likely to get a lot of diversity, I’ll wander up to the back of the room because that’s where the students are most likely to sit who are least likely to volunteer and either hand it to them or toss it down the aisle a bit, because the same students always sit up front with their hands raised all the time, and students in the back, at least in my class, are much less likely to ever raise their hand, no matter how many other people have done so. I think one of the things you recommend perhaps using the Bok Center to have people work on alternative teaching strategies to draw out some of these things.

David: Yeah, we do some of the things that you just described. We also sometimes kind of insist on questions from the back of the room. And we also have something called a pre-lecture activity where we get everyone to anonymously answer polls or play games or do something that we’ve created before the lecture. And it’s amazing how much variation you get on these pre- lecture activities. And then everyone in class is astounded when we show them the histograms of responses, and they realize, “Wow, I thought everyone agreed with me and now I realize half the class has a totally different viewpoint.” And it’s not just now a hand or two, they’re seeing data that represents the entire distribution of people in the class, and everyone says that’s the thing they remember the most from the semester, seeing their own data and realizing how different their own perspective is from that of everyone else in the class. And it’s an eye opener.

Rebecca: One of the other things you mentioned earlier was the self selection into classes. Do you have some strategies to encourage folks to explore more things? [LAUGHTER]

David: Yeah, so certainly that’s advice that I give all my students. I’m not sure that that’s [LAUGHTER] the best way to get that advice to be accepted, just sharing it. I certainly take the view that if you are taking a class that’s just going to tell you what you already believe about the world, you’re less likely to be learning than by taking a class that might challenge your preconceptions. That said, I think one thing that instructors should do, in my view… of course, they have academic freedom, so they’re free to decide whether they want to do this… but I would encourage it as good pedagogy, is to offer a range of perspectives in a class and to, themselves, offer the alternative view on an issue, as opposed to the view that is the maybe main thrust of the course. Indeed, I do this myself, I’ll give students the range of evidence on an issue, and I’ll say some scholars think this, and here’s why they think this, and some scholars think this, and here’s why they think this, and here’s the body of evidence that we have, and you can see all the different empirical estimates that have been generated in scholarship in the last 15 years, and so we’re going to be very candid with you about the limitations of what we know and how scholarship has yielded different answers, rather than picking the study that I most like, that is most aligned with my personal viewpoint and teaching it that way. I think good pedagogy goes hand in hand with acknowledging the range of viewpoints that exist in the scholarly community and being forthright that there isn’t a single viewpoint that happens to match my own that is the right approach. And we even have a lecture in the introductory economics class on epistemics, where we talk about the limits of our knowledge and all the ways in which our own views have evolved as we’ve professionally been exposed to more data, seen new research, changed our minds, and so we try to model for our students this concept that there isn’t a set of truths carved on stone that we’re going to hand them. And I would recommend to colleagues that they teach their classes that way. And I think students should also think about learning that way. If they think that they have already discovered the truths carved in stone at age 19, [LAUGHTER] well, they’re in for a big surprise about how the world works. They’re never going to find those truths carved in stone, and they certainly don’t have them already at age 19. So I think we need to message that more in our classrooms.

John: One of the things you’ve mentioned is that students don’t always feel free to express their opinions, but there was also in the report a discussion of student motivation, student engagement, and the relative emphasis that students put on the classes versus the social life and extramural activities. In the report, there’s a number of recommendations, one of which you’ve already discussed in terms of changing how we teach in the classroom. But what are some of the other recommendations of the committee relating to these two issues in terms of getting more students engaged in class and putting more of an emphasis on class, as well as perhaps being more free to express their thoughts in class.

David: I don’t want to create too strong an impression of certitude here we are saying in the report that recentering the classroom, recentering academics, is an important goal going forward, and indeed, we’re already making progress this year where I’m seeing tangible changes in this current academic year, which is really giving me a lot of encouragement That said, the extracurricular life is rich and serves many purposes. So we’re not trying to convey the message that all of that should be shunted aside and people should focus exclusively on their academic lives. I think it’s about finding the right balance, and for some students they’re already well balanced, and for other students, maybe they’re unbalanced with a search for courses that ask very little of them. They’re called gems here at Harvard, g-e-m, and that means low work, high grade, and so maybe not so many gems should be offered, and maybe students shouldn’t seek out a course that is called a gem, and if people feel that they’re so busy out of class extracurricularly and they’re searching for gems, that that’s a sign that maybe the balance hasn’t quite been found for that student. So I think that we should, as a community, ask ourselves, “Well, what courses are famous for having a low lift of work and a very high grade distribution?” and then sort of ask, “Is that the sort of course that we want to be offering?” And that means that for that kind of curriculum, maybe we ask more of our students. Maybe the readings are more demanding, maybe the grading is tougher. So I think that there’s some suggestion to the community of instructors that we might think about raising our standards. And there, we’re thinking about what we ask our students to do out of class, what we ask our students to do even in class. So there’s the cell phone that’s inevitably taking the student’s attention away from what’s happening in the classroom and then 75 minutes have gone by, and you ask the student as they’re leaving the room about what just happened, and because they were parallel processing through the whole thing, they actually didn’t get very much out of it, and 75 minutes were spent kind of scrolling some social media app, and the student might think they got a lot out of that 75 minutes, but in fact, it’s very hard to do two things mentally at the same time. So I think we need to create more stimulating classrooms, more demanding classrooms with respect to assignments, we need to not create a classroom where there are so many A’s that the student can essentially only distinguish themselves by joining the consulting club outside of class and putting all their energy into that. So I think that there’s a lot to be done by instructors in creating a more exciting classroom, a classroom where excellence is acknowledged with higher grades, and it’s not that the norm is an A. I think students might also ask themselves, is the best use of their four years here to focus on things that are happening outside of our classes rather than inside our classes. And if the answer from the students is, well, actually, it’s better outside the class, then I think the faculty need to double down on making the in-classroom experience better. So a lot for us to think about as teachers, and our obligation to create an exciting curriculum that makes students thrilled to come to class. That should really happen. I mean, students should not come to class grudgingly. They should come to class with excitement because something interesting is going to happen, because there’ll be a conversation that will be memorable, because they’ll have an insight that they’ll take with them for the rest of their lives. I mean, classrooms are some of the most remarkable, extraordinary experiences one can have in a lifetime. And if it’s not that, then it’s on us faculty to up our game and create these experiences that are so memorable, that are so transformative, that are so important in the development of our students, that students are actually eager to be there and are not going only because attendance is being taken. Though I might take attendance if that’s a problem too, but for sure, the goal is a classroom that is a wondrous experience, that is the highlight of one’s life, that is sad as you leave it behind and graduate from college. Graduating from college should be, on one part, an exciting moment to move on with your life, and on the other hand, a very sad moment when you’re leaving behind this incredible opportunity to sample intellectually four courses that are life changing every semester. Well, let’s create those courses together.

Rebecca: I think a life changing course, seems like some faculty might have some imposter syndrome [LAUGHTER] around being able to achieve that. Can you talk a little bit more about some of the strategies in the class to make that engaging experience where students maybe don’t want to interact with their phones and they want to fully participate in class.

David: Well, I think students, by and large, do want to participate in class. I think the phone is sort of like a drug and everyone says, “Well, I don’t want to be a heroin addict in five years. I’m going to quit between now and then.” And of course, it’s very hard to quit the addiction. I think phones have a lot of those addictive properties. You enter the classroom thinking, “Gosh, I really need to focus.” I mean, this is my own experience as a student. There weren’t cell phones, but there were plenty of things that one could let one’s mind wander to. So I always enter the classroom intending to take good notes and really focus and not get distracted and learn intensively, and often I found myself drifting off. So we’re all easily distracted, and the cell phone is easy distraction on steroids. So I think students want to learn, and I think we need to create environments that facilitate that learning and make it easy. There’s so many classes that I’ve attended where literally, I was on the edge of my seat through the whole thing and excited because there was something important being said, some conversation with students, among students, between students and faculty, that kept me engaged. And I think students want that. I don’t think they are eager to spend these four years blowing off their courses. I think that is something that happens as a unintended consequence of all the other things they’re doing, like the conversation with a roommate that starts at 11pm and doesn’t end till 3am and after four hours of debating every single philosophical issue under the sun, you finally go to bed, and then, for your 9 am class, you’re very sleepy, and you get to the 9 am class having not gotten enough sleep, and you’re barely awake. That student was excited to be debating philosophy at two o’clock in the morning, and unfortunately, got to class in a drowsy state because of it. They’re not intellectually unengaged, but they’re still not going to really thrive in that classroom because of the sleeping that they didn’t get. So my sense is that students want to learn, and we just need to help create environments where it’s conducive to learning, where being in class isn’t going to put you to sleep, it’s actually going to wake you up, because so many exciting things are happening with respect to what is being said, debates that are taking place in real time, opportunities to ask questions, moments where we’re all on the edge of our seat because a student is actually pushing back on a faculty member on some issue and there’s a interesting dialog happening, maybe students also interacting with each other on some issue that is being discussed in the class, and so there’s a conversation, there’s issues that are surprises, there’s intellectual turns that were unexpected, there’s data that’s surprising, there’s ideas that are engaging. I mean, these are all aligned with what our students want. And I think the problem is often they come to class, and actually it’s a pretty boring lecture, and that’s not their mistake, that’s ours.

John: And along the lines of mobile devices, one of the things recommended in the policy is that mobile devices be either banned or discouraged, except in the cases of documented disabilities or when they’re being used actively for some component to the class. And in your class, the article mentioned that you had a device- free zone, but many people chose not to sit there. How can we encourage students, perhaps, to not use mobile devices?

David: I want to be clear, the policy in our class is no cell phones anywhere, so that’s a universal ban across the entire classroom, but we do allow students to use laptops and to use iPads if they want to. Though we also have a iPad and laptop free zone, I struggle with the question of laptop and iPad use, because for many students, they, I think, legitimately view it as an aid for learning, just a regular academic experience, I like to take my notes on an iPad, for example, as opposed to any need to use an iPad. So, I’m open to students doing that. I do warn them that it’s a slippery slope. Once you have the laptop open, you’re one click away from all the distractions and temptations of the internet, and that will really undermine your teaching. And what we do in our class is we actually hand out photocopies of the slides so they can commit to keep their laptop closed by simply using our photocopies and taking notes with a pen on our photocopies. And most of our students do that. That said, I think there are students that want the hybrid experience, and probably some who are taking advantage of being in a laptop allowed zone or iPad allowed zone to occasionally check out and check into their email or everything else that’s happening. So I’m torn about exactly how to handle the classroom environment. I’m open to professors that are going to do a complete ban. I think that’s fine. Obviously there’s accommodations, and we, I think, need to be mindful of that, but a complete ban outside of accommodations. But I’m also open to saying, “Hey, these young people need to learn how to develop this skill of living in a distracting world, and maybe part of developing that skill is realizing that after 75 minutes in the classroom, they have gotten nothing out of a lecture because they found themselves doing one thing after another on their laptop.” And so there is an upside to the distraction, which is a little bit of growing self awareness, which emerges as people begin to discover that we think pretty serially and cannot think consciously on parallel streams, and consequently that skill set of learning how to operate in this distracting world is developed in a room that allows them to use these electronic devices, though I think the cell phone is just so obviously destructive that I’m happy to nix that.

Rebecca: The policies that completely ban all devices except for accommodations… are we kind of skirting or dancing around issues of privacy when it comes to students’ disability status and things like that.

David: Yeah, so that’s a real issue. I mean, I think I’m still comfortable with having that policy, but I think you make a good point.

Rebecca: So we certainly encourage folks to read the full report, to dig into the details, but we always wrap up by asking, what’s next?

David: You don’t change the momentum of a university overnight. So I think writing a report is a great step, and now there’s lots and lots of work to be done to both evaluate the merits of the arguments in that report, and to the extent the arguments have merit, to change our culture, and some of those changes come with legislation, which indeed, Harvard has passed. There’s new language in the undergraduate handbook, which is in the report and mentions a lot of the things that I’ve discussed, including other things that I haven’t discussed, like Chatham House rules in class to give people more comfort speaking authentically. Chatham House rules, as I think your listeners know, is a policy of non-attribution so people can say things in class, experiment with new ideas without being afraid that it’s going to show up on a social media post five minutes after class ends with their name attached to it. So legislation, policy making, culture change, rules that align with the messages that I’ve said, like, how much do we allow pass/fai… Harvard is restricting the degree to which students can take pass/fail courses, not eliminating it, but reducing the freedom to do that as frequently as students did so in the past… finding ways to implement and enforce policies that ban electronic devices in the classroom or at least limit their usage, figuring out where the sweet spot is, and all of that, changing the norm so students get comfortable with difficult conversations, not just in the classroom but also in the dining halls, creating a classroom culture where we’re excited to talk with people who disagree with us, rather than horrified to interact with someone who doesn’t share our viewpoints. I’m seeing all these things actually happening in real time. There’s more and more willingness, just in the last year, for people to say what they think, and we have a lot of work to do. It’s not that culture change happens overnight, but we’re, I think, broadly, moving in that direction, even though there’s individual instances where I’m quite unhappy and still concerned about the freedom of speech on our campuses. So it’s sort of two steps forward, one step backward. But we didn’t get here overnight, and we’re not going to get out of the place we are in overnight. Let’s keep working on these issues and thinking about how we make our academic environments healthy and productive and engaged, and how we create classrooms that people are super excited to have the opportunity to enter and sad when the 32 courses are over and they’re off to the rest of their lives. College should be an extraordinary privilege and an academically delightful one, and getting back to that place, if we were ever there, is going to take some work.

John: Well, all the things that you’ve discussed, I think, pretty much all colleges are facing and it’s nice to see the actions that you’re taking. And I think a lot of institutions could benefit from exploring these approaches.

David: Thank you.

John: And we will include a link to the report in the show notes, as well as a link to the New York Times article that provoked our interest in this topic.

Rebecca: Yeah.

David: In the New York Times article, I will say one thing, it puts a fair bit of emphasis on the students. I don’t think that’s the right balance. I think we need to put a lot of emphasis on what the faculty are or are not doing to create a stimulating classroom environment that will, in this dance between the student and the instructor, create a combined commitment to all the things that we’ve discussed, and just saying the students need to be more academically inclined, I think, is the wrong message, and the New York Times article seemed to have a little bit of that tone.

Rebecca: I appreciate your emphasis on actionable items, and as members of our institutions, we can only control the actions that we can take. [LAUGHTER]

David: That’s right, we’re going to make all of this better by creating classrooms that are exciting to be in.

John: And at least move in that direction as much as we can.

David: Yeah, I’m pretty optimistic, actually. I think there are some people that are just brilliant, charismatic teachers, and it’s impossible to copy and paste that. But there’s also a bunch of low-hanging fruit that doesn’t involve being a charismatic instructor, that can create the classroom environment that’s exciting to be in. I actually think that we can create experiences that are very meaningful for our students by sort of working down a long list of check boxes for classrooms that have the right ingredients for engaged learning and active learning.

John: Well, thank you. We very much appreciate you joining us.

David: Thank you. Great to meet the two of you.

Rebecca: 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]

425. Authentic Voice in the Age of AI

Student use of AI tools presents challenges for faculty teaching writing. In this episode, Anna Mills joins us to discuss when and how AI tools can be used to help students develop their writing skills.

Anna has been a leader in exploring effective strategies for integrating AI into higher education in a manner that fosters the development of student critical literacy. Anna serves on the MLA Task Force on Writing and AI and as a lead advisor on the instructional design for MyEssayFeedback.ai. She also has served as the only educational specialist recruited by Open AI to test GPT-4 pre-release. Anna is also an OER advocate who has released numerous OER resources including two OER textbooks, one on How Arguments Work: A Guide to Writing and Analyzing Texts in College, and the other on AI in College Writing: An Orientation. She is also one of the developers of the PAIRR process in which students develop writing skills through feedback from peers, AI, and individual reflection.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Student use of AI tools presents challenges for faculty teaching writing. In this episode, we examine when and how AI tools can be used to help students develop their writing skills.

[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 Anna Mills. Anna has been teaching college writing courses for 18 years and currently teaches writing at the College of Marin. She has been a leader in exploring effective strategies for integrating AI into higher education in a manner that fosters the development of student critical literacy. Anna serves on the MLA Task Force on Writing and AI and as a lead advisor on the instructional design for MyEssayFeedback.ai. She also has served as the only educational specialist recruited by Open AI to test GPT-4 pre-release. Anna is also an OER advocate who has released numerous OER resources including two OER textbooks, one on How Arguments Work: A Guide to Writing and Analyzing Texts in College, and the other on AI in College Writing: An Orientation. She is also one of the developers of the PAIRR process in which students develop writing skills through feedback from peers, AI, and individual reflection. Welcome Anna.

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

John: We’re very happy to talk to you.

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

Anna: Oh, yes, I am drinking Yorkshire Gold. It’s my standby.

Rebecca: A classic.

John: That’s long been a favorite of some of our British colleagues, and I am drinking ginger peach green tea.

Rebecca: Nice. I have switched on to Jasmine green tea.

John: Very good. So we’ve invited you to here today to discuss issues that you’ve been writing about and talking about quite a bit related to fostering academic integrity while helping students develop AI literacy skills. First, though, can you tell us a bit about how you became interested in the possibilities for using AI in education?

Anna: Sure, so I actually grew up in Silicon Valley, and my dad was a software engineer working with the dinosaur age AI of the time, and so when I kind of stumbled onto today’s large language models, before ChatGPT, I was playing around with how well it would do generating essays that fit my assignment criteria, and I realized that it had made a point that I hadn’t thought of in critiquing a sample essay that I had written. And I just thought, this can complement my thinking. This can stimulate my own thinking, this can stimulate and complement what I already do. And if it can do that for me, then it might also stimulate my students, so it might support their learning, depending on how it’s used. But I think I’ve always been interested, growing up in Silicon Valley, in the divergences and convergences between human experience, human thinking, and mechanical processes’ logic and early computing. So I’m always interested in those kinds of tensions and questions, and I just was electrified when I realized that systems that can simulate thought are here. The Turing test has been passed, and that’s the strange age we’re in. [LAUGHTER] So, I think it’s an exciting moment.

Rebecca: Not all faculty lean in [LAUGHTER] necessarily in the same ways that you do, given your past history and your curiosities. One of the major concerns that faculty have about student use of generative AI platforms is that students might use it to substitute learning, rather than complement it, like you had just kind of noted. Many faculty have reacted to the availability of generative AI by simply banning its use. Is that a productive strategy?

Anna: I actually think it’s a pretty reasonable strategy. I would just say it can’t be the end, right? It’s a beginning, it’s not the full answer. And certainly, if we’ve designed a learning activity for the student to do, then it makes sense to ask them to do it, right? and not to have a machine auto-complete it for them. So as a first step, I think banning it for a learning activity that’s not designed for it makes some sense. I just think it’s sort of similar to the dawn of the internet, in that we might ban it for some things, but we also will start to build AI literacy curriculum to guide students as to how to understand this phenomenon, how to think about it, how to consider whether to engage with it or not, and we start to develop some assessments that might involve it as we figure out how it actually could support learning rather than getting in the way. So not everything has to involve it, and certainly we need students to do something, right? So we have to ban it in some contexts and in some ways, even if we want to work with it. So I don’t think instructors who ban it should be demonized at all. I think they just need a little more support to think about those next steps, as far as, how can I continue to guide students in this evolving landscape? How should I start to consider applications, limited applications and pedagogy. I don’t want to demonize anybody for banning it. I think it’s a very reasonable first step.

John: Would limiting or prohibiting its use on lower-level tasks be appropriate so that students could develop some basic skills in the discipline that they could then use to evaluate AI output? Because AI can be really productive, as you’ve noted, but it does also hallucinate, and it does produce output sometimes, which is not very reliable, but in order for students to be able to evaluate that, they need to develop some skill in order to be able to distinguish between what is quality output and what is not. So might bans be more appropriate as students are beginning to develop the skills and then perhaps progressively allowing more use of AI?

Anna: Absolutely, yeah, I’m completely with you on that, and I think there are parallels to calculators and computer use. And I’m very concerned about setting some guardrails, some guidelines, so that students still have these formative experiences, so they can develop the kinds of skills that they need in order to do their own thinking, make their own decisions, to interact with AI productively, to be skeptical of what it gives them, to improve on what it gives them. So absolutely, I want to do that, and that’s kind of why I’ve gravitated toward not inviting my students to use it in hybrid ways in their writing, I want them to have those experiences in college of developing an essay from start to finish, with their own words, their own ideas, their own organization. They’re making the decisions and AI is used in my pedagogy mainly for feedback, that they then reflect on critically. So, absolutely and I think, unlike the calculator, I think you have to wait longer before you’re really ready to be learning with AI in these hybrid ways. I think we have to protect space for students to develop their own skills, making their own choices.

Rebecca: We talked a little bit about disciplinary skills, but we’ve also mentioned AI literacy. Can you define what that is? I think we like vaguely have an idea of what that is, and we’ve been using that term over a couple of episodes, but haven’t really defined it.

Anna: Yeah, I think it’s hotly contested. Sometimes people use it to mean sort of technical knowledge about AI systems, and that’s not usually what I mean. But I think that you have to know enough to be skeptical, as John said, to know that there are errors and hallucinations, that these are fundamentally sort of pattern-matching systems. And beyond that, I think a lot of the things that help you interact well with AI are not specific to AI. So there can be general information literacy skills, reading, writing, and critical thinking skills, expertise in a subject matter, but I think they also involve knowing what current systems are capable of and some of the ways that people use them strategically, so some familiarity with this landscape of what people are doing with these systems and how well they perform. And that’s, of course, a moving target, but I think it is important for educators and students to be keeping up, to some extent, with what’s possible, because that will be part of workplaces, certainly. And at the same time, it’s not about the technical details. It’s not about learning Python and being able to build these systems yourself. It’s not even about prompt, quote, unquote, engineering. What we’re hearing is that, with the current systems, as they improve, you really don’t need these specific technical approaches. You need expertise and thinking and reading and writing skills. So I think any look at AI literacy should really emphasize those. But I think that there is also a certain familiarity that we need to support teachers and students to develop with what can you do now with these systems? What are people doing with them, and what are the pitfalls? What are the dangers as you use them?

John: One of the things that’s happened over quite a period of time is that more and more assessments in classes have been shifted outside of the classroom. That is especially true with online work, and if you are trying to restrict student use of AI tools while they’re developing those basic skills, one of the things that many faculty have tried to do is rely on AI detectors. How reliable are these? When is it appropriate to use them? And in what ways might it be appropriate to use them?

Anna: So they’re definitely not reliable, even the companies will acknowledge that those detection systems sometimes label AI text as human written and sometimes they label human written text as likely AI. So any use of them has to take that into account and not rely on them. That said, I do think they have a limited place in my practice, I have a lot of colleagues who strongly disagree with me, and I recognize some of the concerns that we don’t have rigorous testing of these systems for things like bias against English language learners, and I would like to see more testing and regulation around them, but that said, we do need ways to deter misuse, to make it less tempting to students, and I think AI detection does quite a lot in that respect when you use it to complement other strategies that reduce misuse, and when you reassure students that you know it makes mistakes and that you will take that into account, that you will meet with them, you will use other approaches to determine whether they’ve used AI. In my case, I’m not using it punitively. I am offering students another chance to rewrite. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt where that’s necessary. If I meet with them and they can explain the essay pretty well, I’m not going to penalize them, even if the writing was flagged as AI. So I think there is a judicious way to use them, but I would also like to see a lot of guardrails around their use.

John: And we have seen a lot of cases where faculty just universally will accuse students of AI use when the detectors flag a high probability. But as you noted, that probably is not appropriate without some additional evidence, is that the approach you’d take?

Anna: Definitely, so I’m using detection, but I let students know that if their work is flagged, that means that we’re going to meet and talk about the essay. And when I meet with them, I let them know that I’m not trusting it, but that I am concerned. I want them to be learning, to be developing their confidence, their voice, and we can work together on that. If there is something that was more AI than they intended or they should have done, then that means they haven’t done the learning yet, and there’s still space for that in the class. And then I’m using it in association with a lot of other things. First and foremost, I’m emphasizing what can I do so that they feel engaged with the class and intrinsically motivated. I’m giving them a lot of choices about essay assignments. We’re talking about how writing helps us develop our thinking skills and how that’s applicable to many other things in life. And I’m checking in with them a lot about their engagement with the assignment. I’m offering a lot of support for their process, a lot of formative assignments along the way that are credit/no credit, a lot of tutoring support, scaffolding for the skills to help them build that confidence in their own voice. And I’m also offering ways to use AI that support their learning, that are not cheating and so kind of trying to guide them into that other path, where it stimulates their thinking rather than replacing it. So I think it all goes together. There’s not one right approach and one wrong approach. There’s a lot of things that can help. And you can get around detection, also. There are tools that will, quote, unquote humanize AI text to get around detectors. You can get around process tracking. You can simulate typing into a Google Doc and make it look like you’ve spent an hour on that Google Doc. So these approaches, they’re not adequate gotchas, and they shouldn’t be used in that spirit. But that said, we need accountability in most areas of human life, even if we mean well, sometimes we need help sticking to that, and we need deterrence for those actions that deviate from the path. And I think AI detection can be that, it can help with that. And as you said, we’ve got quite a situation with online learning, and we may need some proctored assessment to complement it as well going forward. But I think this is a little bit like cybersecurity, so it’s never going to be perfect, and yet you can’t stop working on it. And I think some technical mechanisms to discourage misuse can support educators, can be an ethical tool. So I think we should keep asking for ethical tools that support academic integrity.

Rebecca: Both you and John have talked about online learning and the challenge of assessments [LAUGHTER] in the age of AI, so other than oral exams or in class blue book exams, proctored exams, what else can we do in the age of AI to make sure that we have good assessments for students when these other ones might be a bit vulnerable?

Anna: Well, I think that there’s a great literature on humanizing online learning. People like Michelle pacansky Brock have really shared a whole bunch of wonderful practices that are good pedagogy anyway, so things like collaborative annotation, where students are commenting on the readings for class in a social way and responding to each other. Video and audio assignments, using platforms like VoiceThread or Canvas Studio, so building courses so that they are social in a variety of ways, including discussions, but beyond discussions, I think those things can help. Online learning doesn’t have to be sort of one direction, content delivery and then performance. There’s a lot more possibilities than that. I’m interested in things like lockdown browsers for a little bit more of a guardrail around some online assessment. But I also recognize that’s not secure either. Even with a lockdown browser, you can have another device and have aI going on that device. So I do think we might need some complimentary sort of proctored assessments. There’s this two-lane approach coming out of Australia that says we can have formative assessments where students may or may not use AI, but then we need to validate that there has been learning with some form of secured assessment. And I think we need to keep looking at what that looks like for online courses, balancing things like validity with student access. We got to keep going with online learning, because so many students would not be able to access their education otherwise, and we have to find ways to validate that, and that might mean various forms of observing student learning, close observation, whether that’s proctored assessment in person or some form of online process observation.

John: One of the things that I found somewhat troubling recently is the number of browser extensions that have been developed to automatically detect questions on the screen and to offer to answer those questions. In fact, Chrome provided one for a short period before taking it down. Would a lockdown browser be a strategy to prevent that, or would they not recognize the fact that there is this AI agent hiding in there that is doing the data input, rather than the students themselves?

Anna: Yeah, I have been wanting to test that. I’m not sure if lockdown browsers can block agentic AI browsers like Perplexity Comet or ChatGPT Atlas that will just move around and click and fill out forms for you in the learning management system. I think they might help. But long term, I don’t think teachers should have the burden of trying to design around this. I really think we need the learning management companies and the AI companies to help, to say to these systems, don’t complete work for students. It’s a very simple step that the big AI companies could take to drastically reduce this kind of threat to learning. I think we’ve got to pressure them to do that. And I think there can be mounting public pressure from parents who want their kids to learn, and they want their kids learning to count for something and not be judged against somebody else’s cheating. So I think it’s sort of a common sense societal interest that we’ve really got to push. We’ve got to make space for learning online, and that means don’t let the AI systems jump in and take over. Make sure that it’s the students. And there’s not a whole lot that I think I can do as a teacher to block AI agents. I might be wrong. There are educators experimenting with this. Tim Mousel just released a video where he shows how he built this little system to try to detect if it’s an AI agent and not a student. And maybe that can inspire the learning management companies to do something similar. But I think for most educators, we’re not running the Canvas or the Blackboard, and there’s not too much we can do. Multimodal assignments might slow down an agentic browser, like it’s probably not going to be able to generate a video with my face too easily without a little help. So yes, those things might help a bit, but I don’t think it makes sense to ask teachers to redesign our entire pedagogy when we really don’t have a lot we can even do to block this, and the big companies do have things they can do to block it.

John: We’ll include a link to that video in the show notes. I saw it this morning on LinkedIn myself and I. He was able to block two of the three things he tested with his work. But it’s an escalating battle. We have better things to do with our time as educators than to fight that.

Anna: And why should we throw out pedagogy that works and that is research based? Why should we deprive students of those kinds of learning experiences that we know how to provide? So I really want to protect things that we know are valuable. I want my 14-year old son to have those learning experiences, and teachers shouldn’t have to throw them away. That doesn’t make any sense.

Rebecca: You talked a little bit earlier about ways to preserve academic integrity, but also to motivate students. And you hinted at a few things like process, scaffolding, and things like that. Can you dive a little bit more into what that looks like, maybe in one of your classes?

Anna: Sure. So in writing pedagogy, we’ve been teaching writing processes and strategies for years. So in my class, that starts with collaborative annotation of readings for the class, so students are speaking back to the text in the margins and talking to each other about it, and that starts to lay the foundation for what they want to say in their essays and for making space for their voices. Then there are a lot of low-stakes assignments where they’re brainstorming or they’re writing drafts where they have permission for them to be terrible. We’re reading about writing strategies that help us get past those difficult moments. We’re acknowledging that thinking is hard and sometimes painful or frustrating, and that’s okay, and there are lots of things we can do to seek support. I’m assigning tutor visits as homework. I’m giving lots of chances to review each other’s drafts, to revise, to reflect on AI feedback before there’s a final draft due, and even then, I’m saying, “You can rewrite to raise the grade.” So this is an ongoing process where there’s support all along the way. We’re going to get stuck, but there are a million moves we can make to feel better and to ultimately push our own thinking further in the writing process. And you get credit for all of those things that you do. So I’m hoping that that’s really an affirming and a hopeful orientation to writing that carries a lot of empathy for the moments [LAUGHTER] when it’s hard and onerous, but that ultimately offers a lot of options for every step.

John: Many of the guests we’ve had on the podcast in the past have advocated alternative grading systems as a way of shifting the focus from grades to learning. Have you experimented with that? Or have you talked to many people who have tried this, and has it had an impact on improving student motivation in shifting the focus from just trying to maximize grades to maximize learning?

Anna: Yeah, I think it definitely does help. A proportion of my class is sort of ungraded credit/no credit for process assignments, and then I do have a portion that’s graded. I think it can help. I think you still have to have a certain minimum standard for passing the class, but I think it’s something I’d like to explore further, because I think it does remove a lot of that anxiety for students. The sense of inadequacy is huge in first-year composition classes and the sense of imposter syndrome, and “maybe I don’t belong here, and I should be using big, fancy words.” So, there’s so much sense of inadequacy and fear and imposter syndrome in first-year composition in community colleges where I teach. So you can say to students, “I want to hear your voice and you don’t have to use fancy vocabulary and all of that,” but it’s hard for that to really sink in. I think that ungrading can be part of just affirming whatever it is that students bring to class. But I think also sharing examples with students of student voice, and celebrating that, can be powerful as well, so that it really becomes the students’ space and more on their own terms, and I think ungrading can be part of that.

Rebecca: One of the ways that you’ve talked a little bit about doing this is through the PAIRR process. Can you talk a little bit about this process for our listeners?

Anna: Sure. So PAIRR stands for peer and AI review plus reflection. This was actually developed first at University of California – Davis by Carl Whithaus, Lisa Sperber, and Marit MacArthur, principally, but I was doing something very similar on a parallel track as a volunteer advisor for MyEssayFeedback, which is this not-for-profit app, and then I joined forces with the UC-Davis PAIRR researchers, and we’re now working together because it’s an approach essentially to bringing AI into what we already know about good writing pedagogy and building AI literacy in the process. So basically, you keep what’s good, including peer review and instructor feedback and students drafting, putting together their own draft, and then you bring AI in for feedback that stimulates further revision, and you encourage students to question that feedback and compare it to what they got from their peers, and think about how they feel about that, and what was their actual purpose with the writing. Did the AI feedback get it right, or did it misinterpret what they want to do? So you’re building this habit of skepticism of AI and also building some prompting skills, helping students get the most out of that feedback by pushing back in various ways and asking for more from the system. So that’s the core of the approach. But we also start out with some AI literacy readings, so that students have some basic concepts about what these systems are and AI literacy, including questions around the ethics of AI and how those ethics should influence our decisions about AI use. That’s a big piece of it as well, but really the goal is to support students’ sense of agency around their own words, their own thinking, and their choices around using AI. So it’s a really simple method, and I think, very complementary to existing pedagogical practices. So it’s kind of something that people who are against or afraid of AI can use, and that people who are excited about AI can use. I think of it as kind of a meeting place, this approach.

John: How have students responded to this approach, or the approach that you’ve talked about with MyEssayFeedback?

Anna: So the UC Davis researchers, they have a piece out in Computers and Composition. They found that students overwhelmingly preferred having both peer and AI feedback. They found them the most useful in combination. They didn’t want one or the other. Often the AI feedback reinforced the peer feedback. Sometimes it provided a complementary perspective. They also noted flaws in it, that it wasn’t always right, and so that’s overwhelmingly what I’ve seen as well in student response to MyEssayFeedback. I’ve used it for I think this is the fifth semester, and that’s what we’ve seen in other teachers’ observations and student testimonials on MyEssayFeedback, that it’s sort of like, “Oh, this is a way that AI can support my writing and not interfere and not get in the way. I’m still in a driver’s seat, but I’m getting help.” So I think it’s a really powerful paradigm for students that they appreciate. There’s the concrete help, but there’s also that paradigm shift around what AI can be for them. And we hear that again and again in student comments, and we’re still doing further research, so we’re still looking to improve the process, to improve the prompts that we use, the ways we request AI feedback. We’ve done a lot of testing on those prompts, and we shared them publicly as well. So I think we can keep improving that model and sharing it and inviting others to improve on it as well.

Rebecca: One of the things that I can imagine as a student that would be interesting is when you have peer feedback and you also have AI feedback, there’s sometimes conflicts in that feedback, but there’s also places where that feedback converges, and that happens when you have feedback from multiple people anyways, it’s not always the same, so sometimes that helps, maybe, prioritize what to work on or to focus on.

Anna: Yeah, I think sometimes students don’t know whether to trust the peer feedback or the AI feedback, so it is helpful to see where they overlap with each other. We also designed one of our prompts so that it would try to nudge students to speculate on what the human readers will feel or think or want, to kind of remind them that the point is the human readers’ response, ultimately, not so much does it meet the criteria or the grade, although that’s also part of the feedback, but what are your human readers going to want out of this? And that the AI can help them think about that and remind them of that framework, so it really can complement this human-oriented writing process.

John: We have a lot of faculty, though, who are still a bit reluctant to try anything related to AI, and they just like to bury their heads in the sand, or who are just giving up on a role for faculty in affecting the evolution of how we do this in education, because they feel that it’s being dictated to us from the big tech companies out there, and we don’t have any sort of say. How would you respond to those faculty who are either just ignoring AI or who are perhaps giving up any hope of being involved in how we use these tools?

Anna: Yeah, I would say “I hear you.” That makes sense. It’s a lot of cognitive load and labor to engage with it, to learn about it, to try out new strategies, to understand how people are using it. Those of us who are on social media a lot learning about AI and education often liken it to a fire hose coming at us. There’s constant change, and this is labor. I think it is possible, though, to support faculty, to compensate the labor to develop programs that make space for faculty to learn and to shape and reshape our pedagogy, our AI policies, our own practice in an emergent way, in a collaborative way, that is not dictated by the AI companies or by for profit ed tech. And there have been some great examples of this that I’ve been able to be part of. One program at College of the Siskiyous that has participants get a stipend. They attend meetings, they learn certain things, but they’re developing their own project that they’re later going to share and showcase that builds on what they’ve learned, but that is very much their own. And that’s the kind of community of practice model that has some learning, some outside instruction, but also a lot of faculty making decisions based on their own experience and practice. And I think that’s the kind of model that shows respect for faculty, time, energy, and labor that I feel good about saying, if we do this, then we really can ask faculty to engage, and that will feel very different from the AI company saying, “Look at this cool thing we built. You should be using it in X, Y and Z ways. So do a whole bunch more work.” It’s understandable that people would want to say no to that kind of ask, but I think it is possible to support faculty to engage on our own terms, and that’s what we need to do. I just think faculty empowerment around AI is really something I want to see more of. Those of us who are afraid of or hate AI, those of us who are excited about it, all of the faculty voices are needed to shape what is our society going to look like? What is learning going to look like? We should be the ones shaping that. So I want to see more involvement, more people listening to us, in terms of how these systems are shaped, how the learning management systems are shaped, where the money goes. And I think we don’t need to be intimidated. These systems are very straightforward to interact with. We have the expertise to work well with AI. We have the expertise to give guidance on how it should and shouldn’t be used, and what the systems should do and not do. So really, they need us. Society needs us. Let’s step up to that. Let’s claim that, a more powerful place in shaping our future with AI.

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

Anna: Well, I want to improve on this AI orientation textbook that I’ve done and really share it, and I want to start making more student facing videos. I think one space where a lot of learning happens that both faculty and students haven’t yet tapped into as much as we could is social media, and so I do a lot of engagement with other faculty learning on social media, and I want to reach students on there as well, and be in dialog with students on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, because I think that this is a moment of great vulnerability, risk, possibility, overwhelm, change, and the only way to feel good [LAUGHTER] in those kinds of moments is to sort of turn toward each other, to support each other, and to keep talking through it, and to sort of make space for new practices to emerge. So that’s really where I get my energy and hope. And I think that my wish would be for more faculty and students to get to experience that with each other and find more spaces for that with each other.

John: Excellent. I’m not sure I’m ready to do any of the TikTok dances, but that would be a place to go to reach students. [LAUGHTER]

Anna: Right. And I’m all about like that vulnerable message to students of “I don’t have all the answers, and even I question sometimes whether I should use AI at all, given the ethical concerns, I don’t have the perfect prescription for ethical AI use, but, here’s what I’m learning, here’s what I’m doing now, and why and how you might critique that, but why I’m still doing it.” I think we can be honest and vulnerable with students, and it feels better to me when I do that. I think ultimately, as an educator, it is exciting that this is all changing so fast, and students want to talk about it, they want to learn about it, they want to develop their own opinions about it and responses to it. And that’s where we are, too, as teachers. So that’s the moment where we can really meet students in a really genuine way and be energized together. To be honest about this, I think that’s a good aspect about the moment. There are a lot of challenges, but that is a good thing about where we are today as teachers.

Rebecca: I really appreciate that idea of bringing people together to talk about the issues that are really bothering them or exciting them, or whatever emotion they’re [LAUGHTER] having about it, and that experts and the novices can be together in the same space and learn from each other.

Anna: Yes, AI keeps hijacking our department meetings in the English department. [LAUGHTER] Everybody wants to talk about it at every meeting, whether it’s on the agenda or not. So we need each other. We need those conversations. And there’s so much energy around it. We really can support each other and grow together given that great need.

John: And it’s hijacking pretty much every educational developer conference that I’ve been to in the last three years. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Or podcasts for that matter, John.

Anna: Yeah. [LAUGHTER]

John: Well, thank you. It was great talking to you, and we’re looking forward to more conversations in the future.

Anna: Thank you for your wonderful questions and a wonderful conversation. I appreciate it.

Rebecca: 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]

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]

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]

400. Snafu Edu

Most books and resources devoted to professional development focus on strategies that faculty can use to create a positive learning environment for our students, but generally assume that everything will work as expected. In this episode, Jessamyn Neuhaus joins us to discuss her new book, Snafu Edu, which acknowledges the reality that everything does not always work as we hope that it will, and suggests strategies for addressing common situations in which things go wrong.

Jessamyn is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. She is a historian and the editor of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods. Jessamyn has published extensively in scholarly publications in the areas of history, pedagogy, and cultural studies. She is a recipient of the SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Teaching. Jessamyn is the author of  Geeky Pedagogy: A Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to be Effective Teachers, and the editor of Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases about Faculty and Increasing Student Learning. Her newest book, Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom will be released shortly by the Oklahoma University Press series on Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Education, edited by James Lang and Michelle Miller.

Show Notes

  • Jessmyn Neuhaus
  • Teaching History: A Journal of Methods
  • Neuhaus, J. (2019). Geeky pedagogy: A guide for intellectuals, introverts, and nerds who want to be effective teachers. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
  • Neuhaus, J. (2022). Picture a professor: Interrupting biases about faculty and increasing student learning. West Virginia University Press.
  • Neuhaus, J. (2025). Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom. Oklahoma University Press.
  • Neuhaus, J. (2003). Manly meals and mom’s home cooking: Cookbooks and gender in modern America. JHU Press.
  • Neuhaus, J. (2011). Housework and housewives in American advertising: Married to the mop. Springer.
  • Harlow, R. (2003). ” Race doesn’t matter, but…”: The effect of race on professors’ experiences and emotion management in the undergraduate college classroom. Social psychology quarterly, 348-363.
  • Barbeau, L., & Happel, C. C. (2023). Critical teaching behaviors: Defining, documenting, and discussing good teaching. Routledge.
  • Lauren Barbeau and Claudia Cornejo Happel (2025). Critical Teaching Behaviors. Tea for Teaching podcast. Episode 390. April 23.
  • Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Lang, J. M. (2020). Distracted: Why students can’t focus and what you can do about it. Hachette UK.
  • Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach guide for reflection and renewal. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Miller, M. D. (2024). A Teacher’s Guide to Learning Student Names: Why You Should, Why It’s Hard, How You Can (Vol. 2). University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Pittman, Chavella (2025, forthcoming). Empowered: A Woman Faculty of Color’s Guide to Teaching and Thriving. University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Piven, J., & Borgenicht, D. (2010). The worst-case scenario survival handbook: travel. Chronicle Books.
  • Norell, Elizabeth A. (2024). The Present Professor: Authenticity and Transformational Teaching. University of Oklahoma Press.

Transcript

Rebecca: Since we began this podcast in November 2017, we’ve had hundreds of opportunities to have extended conversations with many innovators, researchers, educators, thought leaders, and advocates working to support student learning. We are grateful to all of our guests who have so generously contributed their time, to the new friends and colleagues we’ve gained, and for all of our listeners. We’re excited that our friend and colleague, Jessamyn Neuhaus joined us to celebrate in our 400th episode.

John: And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

John:Most books and resources devoted to professional development focus on strategies that faculty can use to create a positive learning environment for our students, but generally assume that everything will work as expected. In this episode, we discuss a new resource that acknowledges the reality that everything does not always work as we hope that it will, and suggests strategies for addressing common situations in which things go wrong.

[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 Jessamyn Neuhaus. Jessamyn is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor in the School of Education at Syracuse University. Jessamyn is an historian and the editor of Teaching History: A Journal of Methods. Jessamyn has published extensively in scholarly publications in the areas of history, pedagogy, and cultural studies. She is a recipient of the SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Teaching. Jessamyn is the author of Geeky Pedagogy: A Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to be Effective Teachers, and the editor of Picture a Professor: Interrupting Biases about Faculty and Increasing Student Learning. Her newest book, Snafu Edu: Teaching and Learning When Things Go Wrong in the College Classroom will be released shortly by the Oklahoma University Press series on Teaching, Engaging, and Thriving in Higher Education, edited by James Lang and Michelle Miller. Welcome back, Jessamyn.

Jessamyn: Thank you. I’m so glad to be here.

John: It’s good to see you again. Today’s teas are:… Jessamyn, are you drinking tea?

Jessamyn: Tea is my afternoon beverage, and we’re recording this in the morning. So I’ve got a very large cup of high octane coffee.

Rebecca: A good way to power the day.

Jessamyn: Exactly.

Rebecca: I have Yunnan Noir today.

John: Very good. And I have a ginger peach green tea today.

Rebecca: Nice. We’re invited here today to discuss Snafu Edu. Can you tell us the origin story of this book?

Jessamyn: Yes, so John and Rebecca, let me take you back in time to the late 1990s, dawn of the internet age. Grunge was king, and I was pursuing my doctorate in U.S. History and Gender Studies, and in doing that research, I became just utterly fascinated with 20th century prescriptive texts, things that reinforced sociocultural and especially domestic ideology, normative domestic ideology. I mean stuff like cookbooks, etiquette guides, 1950s mental hygiene films. And so as a scholar in the archives, that’s what I loved examining in the most, this evidence, these leftovers, of what people at different points in time had decided was the best, most ideal way to live and be, especially at home and at school. And if you’re fascinated by those things, here’s a shameless plug, check out my first two books, which were published in my work in history. One’s on cookbooks, and one is on gender and advertising representation of housewives. So anyway, as a scholar of teaching and learning, I’ve always had that little research fascination in the back of my mind. I kind of question about how advice and research about teaching reinforces certain norms and ideals, not intentionally or consciously, but as discourse, as texts doing ideological work in culture. So I was always thinking, could I maybe write something about teaching, give actionable advice about teaching, like in real life, that interrupted some of those prescriptive ideals. I wanted to write a book that would be useful in people’s daily teaching work. That was the great joy after I published Geeky Pedagogy was hearing from people who were able to use it in their just day-to-day work and drawing on the abundant research about effective teaching practices, and at the same time, in Snafu Edu, I wanted to emphasize that that daily teaching work is, in a word, it’s messy, and it’s not a matter of if, but when something will go awry. And then that was all percolating, and it got cemented in the post-pandemic years so when something had really, really gone wrong in a major way, and the time was right for me, as an author, because I’m fortunate at this point in my career to have something of a platform. I’m no James Lang or Sarah Rose Cavanagh, but I have the ability in the world of educational development and in scholarship about teaching, I have some power to get my work published and to speak to people about things I think are important, the things that I believe need more attention, that we need to talk about more. I’m in a position to be able to articulate those and get some listeners. And what I wanted to articulate this time in this book, is, OMG, things can go really, really wrong in teaching and learning.

Rebecca: I know when I was reading, Jessamyn, I felt like you totally captured the messiness, and certainly the messiness of my classroom and many other colleagues that I have. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Excellent.

John: And I think that will resonate with probably all of your readers. So, speaking of readers, who is the target audience? Is it for faculty just starting off, or for faculty at all stages of their careers?

Jessamyn: Well, my audience is anyone who’s in an instructional role on a college campus. I have been thinking more and more about the ways that teaching happens, not just in classrooms, not just with professors, but all kinds of people in designated staff positions as well. And I am very attentive to what Roxanna Harlow termed disparate teaching realities, meaning that teaching labor is really shaped by every individual’s intersectional positionality, including our embodied identities. And so my hope is that, with those things in mind, anyone and anybody in any teaching context can find it useful. I do think it will be useful for anyone at any stage in their career, but I think it’s going to especially resonate with mid-career educators, basically, anyone who’s been teaching long enough, and it might just even be a couple classes, but anyone who’s been teaching long enough to have made some serious bloopers and experience students making big mistakes too.

Rebecca: Definitely does something to establish some sort of [LAUGHTER] community around the realities of teaching.

Jessamyn: Yeah, so you have some experiences to think back on. I would say, especially for a large section of us, the experiences that kept you up at night, that you tossed and turned, reliving, wondering what you should have done differently, torturing yourself about what went wrong, it would be helpful to have a couple of those in your mind when you pick up this book.

Rebecca: So, I know that we’ve talked about, and you’ve certainly written about in your work, the idea that one size fits all professional development doesn’t really work. So can you talk a little bit about why there’s just no simple solutions to the common problems in education? [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Yeah, I mean, humans gotta human. [LAUGHTER] Nobody’s a widget moving through the world like a product on a factory belt. Every person has their own unique set of experiences, life circumstances, pet peeves, passion projects. I know, for example, Dr. John Kane is a musician and makes a lot of time and effort in his life to play music. There’s things that just matter to us more than maybe matter to other people. And especially in our work, everybody’s bringing with them into the classroom a whole huge honking set of emotional and cognitive baggage that they’ve acquired during their previous or even concurrent experiences in educational settings. I mean, it’s a lot. And also what we’re here to do is incredibly hard. Learning is very, very hard. It often, usually always entails setbacks, and that includes learning how to teach effectively. So, in my view, this reality needs more direct and specific highlighting in discourse about teaching. We just need to talk a lot more about the fact that teaching is not a perfectible activity. And it’s not that anyone’s out there saying teaching is perfectable. No one would say that consciously, but there’s a real strong subtext and a lot of discourse about teaching that, in even, like otherwise, really excellent advice about teaching that, if you just do it, everything will be fixed, everything will be perfect, and that’s not possible.

Rebecca: You talked about the bloopers, but I think a lot of people feel really isolated when those bloopers occur, or those are the things [LAUGHTER]they don’t want to share.

Jessamyn: Yeah, exactly, for many reasons, teaching in higher education is absolutely a closed door culture, and it’s really hard to describe to people who are not college teachers, even people in K through 12, like the dynamic, where if another professor walked into your room when you were teaching, it would be shocking. You would stop. You would be stunned. What are you doing here? …would be absolutely the feeling. It’s a closed, locked, barricaded door around teaching in higher education. So yeah, the stakes are super, super high for when something goes wrong.

John: One of the issues that you’ve just mentioned is that people are working in their own little silos. And when things go wrong, they often don’t talk about it with other people, and as a result, everyone imagines that [LAUGHTER] everything’s going really well for everyone else, and then you have those sleepless nights. And faculty respond to that in different ways. Some people will blame themselves and will struggle with it. Other people might blame their students, and we see a lot of that as well….

Jessamyn: …or both… [LAUGHTER]

John: …or some combination thereof. Why are faculty so resistant to share their experiences with other colleagues?

Jessamyn: I could sum it up in two words: graduate school. A whole bunch of us, not every single person, but a whole bunch of us in higher education, we’ve been quite literally trained in how to wield our intellect like a weapon, and to always try to be the smartest person in the room. I’m exaggerating, and obviously our positionalities, identities, really shape our experience with graduate school. But I do think there’s a culture in academia that feeds perfectionism generally, that you never expose your vulnerable underbelly to the other smarty pants in the room. And I think teaching is especially fraught because of our limited and limiting ideas about what good teaching looks like.

Rebecca: How do we start to normalize this idea of discussing our snafus? Is there things that professional development like teaching centers should be doing? Are there things that administrators should be doing?

Jessamyn: Well, I have two thoughts on this. One is highly aspirational, [LAUGHTER] probably not possible. One is more immediately doable. So in my utopian vision of life as a college educator, everyone will gather every spring for a campus wide oops day, like the only thing we’re doing is discussing all the things that we personally did wrong and all the things that went wrong in our classrooms. And we could include some brainstorming about what to do better next time, but that wouldn’t be the main point. The main point would be, we’re gonna bring out into the light, all the monsters under the bed, the things that went wrong. And as we know from every story about monsters ever, like, once we bring them into the light, they’ll shrivel up and blow away. So probably not too realistic, but more practically speaking, we can advocate at every stage and in every way that when we’re formally evaluating teaching that we need better language and systems for recognizing and then documenting every instructor’s growth narrative of teaching advocacy. I’m really influenced here by the book Critical teaching behaviors: Defining, documenting, and discussing good teaching, by Lauren Barbeau and Claudia Happle, they offer a framework based on six identifiable instructor behaviors, and they argue there’s a vast amount of work that effective teachers do before, during, outside of class meetings in order to facilitate student learning. So leaders, that includes your promotion and tenure chairs, department chairs, administrators, they need to do everything they can to define effective teaching as a career-long process, and that has to include pedagogical learning and reflection, trying new things, assessing and adapting, and importantly, that in that growth narrative, because it’s about growth and learning, there will be mistakes and missteps, but that is evidence of growth, not evidence of ineffective teaching.

John: You mentioned the work by Lauren Barbeau and by Claudia Happle. We had an earlier podcast with them in the spring of 2025 and we’ll share a link to that in the show notes. To help build this sort of discussion, it’s really important that teaching centers have the trust of faculty. And one of the things I think we’ve both seen is that when we have faculty reading groups and people are talking about things that work well and things that don’t work well, it helps to develop that sort of trust. Would this book be a good focus for a faculty reading group?

Jessamyn: Yes, I think so, of course. We would want to ensure, this is one thing I do mention in the book about classrooms, but we want to ensure psychological safety for our participants, making sure that everyone feels able to share ideas, bounce ideas off, and maybe flop, like, maybe suggest something that doesn’t really make sense, and definitely share all the things that we have personally flubbed. So framing it as we’re here to build our growth mindset and think about ways to keep moving forward in our own growth narrative, keeping those things in mind and maybe even more importantly, right now, I think this would be a good book for our present moment when, in fact, there are so many very, very big, truly, almost incomprehensible things going very, very wrong for higher education. These are being brought mostly by outside political and legislative attacks on our curriculums, on our programs, other essential aspects of our day-to-day work. I mean, it’s a true shit storm, and I wrote this before, the past administrative… what would you call it?

Rebecca: …the list of executive orders? [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Yes, exactly. So I don’t discuss it in detail, but one thing I do mention, and what is happening now, is the beep storm that is happening right now on the heels of another major beep storm was the pandemic years, and even more, like for most faculty, the incredibly fast spread of generative AI has taken another big bite out of our cognitive emotional and even our physical stores of energy we have for teaching. So, it’s a good time to think about how educational development can support pedagogical wellness, and how something like a book club is not only a chance for us to learn stuff from experts in research about teaching, but also, and maybe right now more importantly, a place to build connections and community by talking honestly with each other about teaching and that has to include all the things that can and do go wrong. And I would take it as a very big personal victory if, in discussing this book, we could draw on the power of humor and laughter, even rueful laughter, maybe defiant laughter. I don’t mean mocking. I don’t mean laughing at students, but maybe by not always having to take ourselves so super seriously, we can counteract some of the incredibly demoralizing and discouraging realities about teaching, the ongoing disparate teaching realities, the perfectionism. I know not everyone is willing or able to engage in kind of self-deprecating joking that is my go to but that’s one reason I shared a bunch of my worst mistakes in this book. So if you can’t share your own for whatever reason, this is my public permission for you to use mine.

John: We’ll be doing a book club on our campus this fall, so we’ll let you know how that goes.

Jessamyn: And anyone who is doing a book club on Snafu Edu, I’m very happy to zoom in to do a Q and A with your group.

Rebecca: Awesome. I couldn’t help but imagine, while you were describing your utopian oops day, like a lot of laughter and things like “bravely sharing their blunder award,” or something, [LAUGHTER] like where everyone votes for the best blunder. [LAUGHTER]

Jessamyn: Yeah. [LAUGHTER] The face plant award, yeah.

Rebecca: Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I wanted to just share that I imagine that as it being a very joyful event, [LAUGHTER] despite the hard conversations.

Jessamyn: Yeah, that would be fun. I’m there. Send me an invite.

Rebecca: All right, sounds good. [LAUGHTER] You suggest a general approach throughout this book, addressing challenges in our classrooms, and summarize it with the acronym, STIR,, S-T-I-R. Can you talk about what STIR stands for and how one might use it?

Jessamyn: Sure, with the caveat I get that there’s already too many acronyms, and this is a pretty cheesy one, but part of the reason I went to the acronym is because of when things do go wrong, it’s hard to think clearly, and sometimes a snappy acronym can help keep us on track, can help us bring back to the present moment. So this particular one, it’s a variation on other kinds of conflict resolution strategies such as SOAR, which is stop, observe, assess, react. For Snafu Edu. I’m suggesting, for my audience of other brainiacs and eggheads in higher education, is Stop, Think, Identify, and Repair, and it’s just a way of framing some of the preparation we can do for when the snafus hit the fan, a reminder that in situations that pose problems, when things are about to go wrong, when things might go wrong, when things are going wrong, we can usually exercise some agency in the classroom and interactions with students by taking a beat to use our big brains, then think about what all might be going on, to approach with curiosity based on what we know from our research and the scholarship for teaching and learning from our wisdom of experience, try to identify what’s going on, and then to the extent that it’s possible, taking steps to repair the snafu. And this is a good place to note that my book doesn’t address the very worst case scenario for any classroom, active shooter threats or other kind of physical danger. That’s 91,1 not STIR.

Rebecca: I really like that you chose repair for the R, because there’s a lot of other words you could have maybe chosen that was a really important choice.

Jessamyn: I think so. It evokes trying to patch something up to the best you can. One thing that I really wanted to avoid was some of the cliches around making mistakes, or the discourse about making mistakes that it’s always inevitably going to lead to a good outcome. With the right “can do” attitude and the right frame of mind, you can always turn it into something really positive. That’s not true. I don’t believe that, and I didn’t want to even accidentally reinforce that with the word

John: Your book is broken up into five parts that address challenges in teaching and learning associated with inequity, disconnection, distrust, failure, and fear. Could you give us a couple of examples of some of the problems associated with these issues and how you might perhaps go through that STIR approach?

Jessamyn: Sure. The most important thing I want to say first is the thing that Snafu is really adding to the conversation is that those five things create problem and obstacles for learners and for us as educators. Most books about teaching, including my first book, Geeky Pedagogy, they focus mainly on the learner’s experience and strategies for addressing and reducing obstacles to student success and then conversely, research on like inequities faced by instructors often doesn’t also fold in that students are navigating those inequities as well. So in Snafu Edu I want to make sure that when we talk about things going wrong in the college classroom, we are talking about everybody in the college classroom, including us, including the instructors, including the TAs, including everybody. So for instance, inequity, systemic intersectional inequity, it exists no matter how much certain politicians want to convince us that it doesn’t… it exists. It creates obstacles to student learning, and it creates obstacles to effective teaching, especially for any faculty member who doesn’t, quote, unquote, look like a professor. Disconnection and distrust are also aspects of higher education that researchers have been showing for a long time really interfere with success, with major upticks in the post-pandemic era for obstacles to students’ academic success. So, like when a student just doesn’t feel connected in any meaningful way to the subject or the institution, it’s going to be a lot harder for them to persist, and Felton and Lambert’s book, Relationship-Rich Education shows us pretty darn definitively. But so too do instructors need to experience some sense of connection to their work, to the students, in a professionally appropriate way, to their institution. Otherwise things snafu up our work. They get in the way of our success. And distrust, so talk about snafus in the classroom, trust is just the bedrock for what we do, but often not central in our minds when things go wrong. So take for example, here’s one, 100% of people listening to this podcast will have experienced students engaging in non- class related scrolling, emailing, texting, online shopping and so on. There are many and many complicated reasons that our devices are so distracting in the classroom. There’s a bunch of strategies we might use to cultivate attention, covered really well, most recently by James M Lang’s book, Distracted: Why Students Can’t Focus, and What You Can Do About It. But even before all those strategies, we have to be aware that these interactions, even like you see it out of the corner of your eye, they can seriously erode our trust in students as a group. Another one that I think many listeners and readers will relate to is how even one, like literally even one, deliberately cruel, demeaning or even thoughtlessly worded comment on anonymous standardized end of student evaluations, how much that can damage our trust in students. And speaking of student behaviors, another one where it’s really important to think about it in terms of the snafu is fear, because student fear can manifest in behaviors that on the surface look like something else entirely, and not coincidentally, look like things that really can just drive us right up the wall, something that looks like complete disengagement, even hostility or inattention. It might be rooted in students’ really deep psychological physiological fear, completely unrelated to us, related to something else in their school experiences, related to something in their life circumstances. And I guess the last couple things I’ll say is that these snafus, one thing that really became clear as I was doing the research is that they’re both very common and systemic and almost universal, but then they’re also really shaped and defined in unique and individual ways. So, take failure. What does it mean to fail in college? What does it mean to fail in academia? I mean, we have some system wide metrics, like, literally an F for failure, but how that’s experienced by students, how they define it, is really shaped by their life experiences, their goals, their personality traits, what fields they’re interested in, and so on. And failure is tricky too, because by its very nature, learning has to include some failure. You have to do something not very well…and that might include, really just completely dropping the ball… you have to do something not very well before you can learn how to do it well, and that includes teaching. But again, we’re working in these bigger systems that can really interfere with our ability to engage in productive failure and mistakes.

Rebecca: Each part of your book uses a similar organizational structure where you kind of describe the problem, discuss possible repair strategies when things go wrong, and concludes with a discussion of proactive approaches and a go bag, [LAUGHTER] that reduce the likelihood or severity of the problems in that section. Can you talk a little bit about why you chose this particular organizational structure?

Jessamyn: Yeah, I so appreciate that question, because I really wrestled with how to structure the book in a way that supported my argument, we have to normalize mistakes, missteps and things going wrong in teaching and learning, and when I say normalize, part of that is recognizing that they take a real toll on us, that again, I didn’t want it to be like this cliched view of mistakes. I didn’t want it to read like I was saying, “Oh, well, we mess up sometimes, but it’s all a glorious process of learning, and we’re gonna hop on our Mr. Mess, the learning unicorn. We’re gonna fly up to the rainbow of perfect teaching and learning.” No. Things going wrong, it can really suck, and it’s not always resolved in a productive way. Sometimes things go wrong, period. There’s no silver lining, there’s no wisdom gained. It’s just bad and things go wrong. So the structure, how I thought about how to do this, the first section really is just an overview, but it lays out some of the most compelling evidence from the research about why things go wrong because of inequity, disconnection, distrust, failure, and fear. And I want to start there to really enforce why these snafus can be expected, and then building on that, the next chapter, again, is working to normalize snafus by focusing on what to do when they happen, and keeping in mind that, again, positionality and context always matters, and that the repair suggestions in the next section, they always have to be adapted to your teaching context, your personality, and what will work for you with where you’re at. But I didn’t want to just leave it there. I did want to make sure that readers were empowered as much as possible to exercise agency wherever and however they can. And increasing agency is my response to the snafus caused by fear. The opposite of fear isn’t exactly agency, it would be something like courage, like Parker Palmer’s The Courage to Teach, but I think courage is just a little bit too judgy. It’s a little bit too much to say to people, things go really wrong, but you have to be courageous. I don’t think that’s sufficient, in the year of our Lord 2025 to say, “be more courageous.” I think, though we can say for students as well, in the face of fear, that we can find ways to exercise agency. Agency is limited. It’s limited by things outside our control often, but there are places where we can exercise it in teaching and learning, in our classrooms, in our actions, in our course design. So those last chapters in each of the sections gives an overview of some, it’s not all of them, it’s just a selection of a couple high impact practices for increasing equity, increasing connections, increasing trust, increasing success and increasing agency. And in all cases, it’s about how to increase those things for ourselves as well as our students.

John: Can you give us an example of something going wrong in the classroom, some possible repair strategies and how to ameliorate future related issues so that people come prepared for such problems?

Jessamyn: Sure, let’s talk about one super, super common snafu that on the surface may seem like a small issue, but once you’ve delved into it, it touches on some really big ways that things can go wrong and can create real obstacles for teaching and learning: names, our names, and more specifically, learning, correctly pronouncing, and using each other’s names in class and in interactions with students… and wait, before everyone who teaches huge lecture classes of hundreds skips ahead. This does apply to all of us, all of us working in higher education or really, actually, any human person in any professional or social situation, names matter. Names always matter, even if you personally, you as an individual cannot memorize every single student’s name in your 300-person, 400-person lecture. That doesn’t mean that names aren’t important. I mean, they’re not just like labels. They’re not just widget labels. They’re the first and foremost expression of our subjectivity, of our ability to act and be in the world. And so to be recognized by names is to be recognized as a person. The scholarship on teaching and learning very clearly shows that when an instructor learns and uses student names, even if, like in a huge class, they can’t learn every single name or use them every single time. It improves students’ rapport with, perceptions of, the professor, and it can improve learning and engagement. But I would argue, just as important is students learning and using each other’s names, and students learning, correctly pronouncing, and using… and this is maybe controversial… but using a professor’s last name and their title. Yep, I’m going on record here to say that when you’re working with them in the classroom, in a class, students should call you Professor such and such, or Doctor so and so, because and here’s where names intersect with some of those big potential snafus. Names, and for professors, titles are closely tied to inclusivity in the classroom. So inclusivity, meaning that every single person, including the professor, has the maximum opportunity to learn, to engage with the material and to improve their skills. So professional titles really matter, because professors from historically marginalized populations must navigate, must mitigate, students’ preconceptions and stereotypes about academic expertise and authority. So just in short, students are more likely to call women and to call all faculty of color by their first name or Mrs., like in my case, than to call us professor. And of course, students’ sense of belonging and willingness to participate, even attend class, is demonstrably improved when people there, including the professor, know their name. But let’s be honest, it’s really hard. Learning names is really hard in any setting, and I have to give a major shout out here to Michelle Miller’s book. It’s a short guide, A Teacher’s Guide to Learning Student Names. I mean, like chef’s kiss, it should be required reading for everyone in higher education. There’s a lot of ways and means for learning student names, helping students learn each other’s names, and here’s where Snafu Edu comes in. There’s also so many ways this can go wrong. We can get students’ names wrong. We pronounce them incorrectly, we stumble, we fumble, and sometimes that can be pretty disastrous. Sometimes that can be in a way that reinforces stereotypes, that undermine students’ sense of belonging, and that is the same with students using each other’s names and students using our names incorrectly or not knowing them. So all those things could go wrong. When this happens to me, I use the first two repair strategies I discuss in the book for when I mess up a name, students messes up my name, I use a script. That’s my first strategy, and I apologize, my second strategy. So when I say a script, I don’t mean like a memorized monologue you’re using word for word, like a robot in every situation. I don’t mean literally a script like actors use, but I do mean having at the ready a collection of short phrases, a couple sentences that we can do almost automatically in tense or difficult situations. We are human people. When we’re dealing with other human people, we have some biological, even social, cultural, learned responses to potential conflict, problems, defensiveness. We may default to fight, freeze, fawn, or flee. Fawn was new to me, just recently. I know fight, freeze, or flee. Fawning means people pleasing, trying to appease someone, bending over backwards to placate and eliminate any perceived threat. So script in this context, doesn’t mean memorize, but does mean practice, like you have stood in your office and practiced. This is something Chavella Pittman, in her work, has recommended to faculty as well, that you do need to practice what you’re going to say. Now maybe you are so socially skilled and extroverted that you never for one second feel the need to practice your words. And if that’s true, like, how nice for you, like, [LAUGHTER] I love that for you. Good for you. But for the rest of us, scripts can really help. So my two combined strategies, scripts and apology, when I call a student the wrong name or I don’t remember their name. “I’m sorry, [Use the correct name].” That’s from Michelle Miller, like you got to use it to learn it. “I’m sorry, [Correct name]. Names are important. We’ve all been working on remembering them. I apologize for my error.” That’s it, short, simple, no need to get into any like explanations or defensiveness, just “sorry about that.” And to be clear, apologizing is never fun for anyone, and again, positionality and context always matters. It won’t look the same for everyone every time, but when we mess up, and we will mess up, a short, quick apology is an effective repair strategy. Using a script can ease the pain of that. And I have another one for when students call me, it’s usually Mrs. Neuhaus. Sometimes they try Jessamyn, but that’s can be hard to say, so they might default to Mrs. Neuhaus. So I have a script, and it’s something like, “Thank you for that question or comment. Before we discuss it, I just want to remind you that when we’re working together in this learning community, I asked to use my professional academic title, Professor Neuhaus. I know it’s not easy to remember, using everyone’s names isn’t easy. I appreciate your effort to do this,” something like that. These are my repair strategies, because of the ways that those small moments can really create big, big snafus in equity, trust, and connection, for educators, for us and for our students. So the final part of your question was, then, how might we reduce this in the future? It’s not easy. Again, from Michelle Miller’s work, I know that the key thing is to make it a priority and put in the time and effort to learn names and also structure classes and class activities so students can learn and use each other’s name, and more broadly, learning and using names goes to two important strategies I outline for increasing equity. We want to plan for learner variability, and we also want to plan for learner biases. So we want to proactively structure activities, office hours, interactions, knowing that we must expect and hey, let’s be joyful about this. We celebrate diversity as an academic asset, and that includes every unique and individual name. So that’s great. Let’s plan for that. Plan for ways to do that. If it means I’m going to have a shorter class the last day of our first week, because I’m going to make names the priority and I need time to practice them, then that’s what I’ll do. And two, the second one is also important, planning for ways that learner expectations or assumptions can flare up around names. So instead of getting caught in, “Oh my God, who is Mrs. Neuhaus, I spent so long in graduate school to get my PhD, do not call me Mrs. Neuhaus,” [LAUGHTER] like and then snapping “It’s Doctor, not Mrs.” I mean, that’s true, but is that helpful? Is that a good way to build connection, trust, equity and to move on productively? And does it feel good for me to do that? No, no, better is to have that practiced response, that script in my mind so we can address it and move on.

Rebecca: …In a much more calm fashion. Each chapter ends with a section called “gear for your go bag,” which we mentioned a little bit earlier. Can you talk a little bit about why you chose the metaphor of a go bag for these sections?

Jessamyn: Sure? Yeah, two reasons. One, just on a practical note, and especially for books like this one, that’s kind of crammed full of actionable teaching advice and you’re generating a lot of ideas as you’re reading it, it’s really helpful to have that concise summary at the end of the chapter. But second, I just love the metaphor. It resonates with the quotes that I use throughout the book, from the Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook. I deliberately chose this book, and I wanted to use it because it’s this very tongue in cheek, but also factual guide for surviving ludicrously terrible situations: your parachute doesn’t open, you get stuck in quicksand, you have to land a plane even though you’re not a pilot. And when I use it in my book, it’s this rejoinder to sanctimonious teaching advice that downplays or even ignores the reality of things going wrong, like “No, things go wrong.” So having a go bag in that context, it means you’re packed and ready for when things go sideways. In popular culture and in prepper world, it means you’re packed, ready to go when the apocalypse hits. So in the book, it’s just my little bit of a snarky way of saying we can at least have a few things to grab when something goes wrong.

John: What would you say is the major message that you’d like your readers to take away from this book.

Jessamyn: Sure, I have to start with a shout out to Liz Norell. She’s the author of The Present Professor. She was an early reader of Snafu in manuscript form, and she helped me identify and articulate three major ideas that run through the whole book and that I would like readers to take away into their teaching practices: humans mess up, inequities exist, but the super teacher does not exist. And don’t get me started too much on the super teacher. I’ll take up all the rest of my time. But since we haven’t mentioned it yet, the super teacher, I want you to think about the last time you saw a college professor character on a TV show or film, and specifically, were they teaching? And if they were teaching, what they were doing, they were lecturing. They’re always lecturing, but they’re not just lecturing. Their lectures are on this inherently fascinating topic, usually like psychosexual violence [LAUGHTER] or like serial killers. And students were mesmerized. They show, they always show… They depict the students. Nobody’s scrolling, nobody’s sleeping. They’re nodding. They’re eagerly raising their hands to ask questions. And after his, it’s not always, but often it’s, his lecture, his highly entertaining lecture that he gave with no notes whatsoever, the students might even feel moved to applaud. I mean, I ask you applause. Okay, so such depictions, they’re more than just amusingly inaccurate representations of the college classroom. They express this really persistent and powerful, limited and limiting assumption and expectation about what good teaching and authentic learning looks like. So it’s not just bad for teaching. It’s bad for learning, because in this representation, students do nothing but sit there and get entertained and somehow their heads are magically filled with knowledge. So it undermines our own self efficacy. It can undermine our self image. It really contributes to stereotypes around professors, and they are just born that way. The super professor’s not like going to the workshop and reflecting on pedagogical practices, and they’re definitely not messing up and then making an adjustment trying to do better. So it would make me really, really happy if, because of reading my book, any educator who gets caught in snafu, the first thing they think of is, “yep, humans mess up,” and then going forward, figuring out what to do next, keeping in mind that inequities exist, they’re reality, shaping everybody’s teaching and learning contexts, and that nobody can live up to that really impossible ideal that doesn’t reflect how teaching and learning actually works in real life, to stop, think, identify, and repair to the extent that is possible.

Rebecca: That seems like a great note to wrap up on, but we always wrap up by asking, “What’s next?”

Jessamyn: I am really excited about my current book project, which is going to be a guide for college educators to designing, assigning, assessing and, most importantly, enjoying, unessay projects.

Rebecca: That sounds fun.

Jessamyn: It’s going to be fun.

Rebecca: I like the underscore on the enjoying.

JESSMYN: Yes, yes. It’s the biggest ace in the hole for talking about unessays is that people who put in the work to design them, because it’s not easy, and assess them, also not easy, report that they have fun assessing them. That’s like a mind blowing, reality shattering statement, instead of slogging through grading, counting every minute you could have fun doing it. Yeah, let’s talk about that.

John: Fun is good. [LAUGHTER] Well, thank you. It’s always great talking to you, and we’re looking forward to future conversations.

Rebecca: Yeah.

Jessamyn: Thanks for having me.

Rebecca: I always appreciate that you put a full range of human emotion in talking about teaching and learning and enjoy your storytelling. So I’m glad folks will have the opportunity to read Snafu Edu soon. Thank you so much.

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

390. Critical Teaching Behaviors

Student feedback is important to improving teaching, but may not be aligned with evidence-based teaching practices. In this episode, Lauren Barbeau and Claudia Cornejo Happel join us to discuss a midterm student feedback instrument focused on critical teaching behaviors, an AI-assisted tool for analysing the feedback, and strategies for debriefing with students.

Lauren is the Assistant Director for Learning and Technology Initiatives at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Claudia is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Lauren and Claudia are the authors of Critical Teaching Behaviors: Defining, Documenting, and Discussing Good Teaching as well as a whole series of other resources related to this book.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Student feedback is important to improving teaching, but may not be aligned with evidence-based teaching practices. In this episode, we discuss a midterm student feedback instrument focused on critical teaching behaviors, an AI-assisted tool for analysing the feedback, and strategies for debriefing with students.

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

John: Our guests today are Lauren Barbeau and Claudia Cornejo Happel. Lauren is the Assistant Director for Learning and Technology Initiatives at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Claudia is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Lauren and Claudia are the authors of Critical Teaching Behaviors: Defining, Documenting, and Discussing Good Teaching as well as a whole series of other resources related to this book. Welcome, Lauren and Claudia.

Lauren: Thanks, John.

Claudia: Thank you.

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

Lauren: I sure am. I’m always drinking tea. So I am drinking a passion fruit peach tea, courtesy of my friend and colleague Karen, who went to the SOTL conference in Savannah and brought this back for me from the Savannah Bee Company. So if you’re listening, Karen, thank you.

Rebecca: That’s a nice little story. How about you, Claudia?

Claudia: I am also drinking tea that comes to me by way of a conference, mine was in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the tea that I’m having is a Rajasthani chai tea.

Rebecca: Oh, yum. How about you, John?

John: I am drinking tea that came from a Wegmans, [LAUGHTER] which is a black raspberry green tea from the Republic of Tea.

Rebecca: And I have a Blue Lady tea from Scotland.

John: Very nice. We’ve invited you here to discuss the critical teaching behaviors framework that you have jointly developed and some recent extensions of that framework. Could you tell us a little bit about how this project got started?

Lauren: Sure. So this project really started when we were working together at Georgia Southern University, and at the time, we were very much in need of a campus language in which to discuss what good teaching is. What happened after that is we found out lots of other people were in the same place. They also needed some sort of a common language in which to ground their conversations about teaching on campus. And so what started off as meeting a campus need ended up expanding to meet a broader need in higher ed.

Rebecca: Can you provide a little bit of an overview of the framework?

Claudia: Sure. So the critical teaching behaviors framework is based on sn extensive literature review that Lauren and I did, starting with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning educational research, primarily in the context of higher education, but also some K through 12 insights found their way into it as well, and based on that literature review, we narrowed it down to six important behavioral categories that all of us as we teach, should ideally engage in in some way, shape, or form to support student success, and those six behavioral categories are align, making sure that our course materials activities align with each other; include, making sure we’re creating an environment and opportunities for all students to be successful; engage, making sure that students are taking an active role in their learning journey; assess, making sure they have a chance to self-assess, to get feedback on their learning; integrating technology, we cannot really think about teaching and learning without technology anymore, and so because it’s such a big part of teaching and learning, we need to think about it intentionally; and then finally, reflect, which is what comes back to us and the importance that we play a role also in continuously growing and improving our teaching.

John: You’ve also developed a number of instruments for faculty use in alignment with this framework. Could you tell us a little bit about these tools and why faculty might be interested in using them?

Lauren: So, this book was designed to be a one-stop shop for faculty. The first half of the book is an overview of the research we did on those six categories of behaviors, as well as reflection questions to help faculty readers think about how they can implement those behaviors. The second half of the book is really all about helping faculty document the fact that they’re doing those things. So we start the second half with some narrative starter templates and some deep reflection to identify your core teaching values, because our values should guide the principles that we use when selecting strategies to implement in our classrooms. That should frame everything that we’re doing. After that chapter, we do a deep dive into peer observation of teaching, which, coincidentally, is our next project. I know I’m jumping ahead to the end where we talk about what’s next, but we do have a book under contract with Routledge to explore peer observation of teaching further. But in this chapter, you get just the basics of what you need to go out and do this right now. So that includes email templates, logistical information collecting templates, some reflection starters for the faculty being observed. It also includes a note-taking instrument for faculty who need help figuring out what I should take notes on when I go into the classroom. And finally, it includes a report form for faculty to collect what they saw in the classroom, with space for the faculty being observed to write down their own reflections. That way, we’re giving faculty agency and voice in the process of creating this artifact. Chapter after that moves into thinking about student feedback, and how we collect student feedback from our students, and how we use that to make decisions about our teaching as well. That chapter really focuses on student feedback, in particular at the midterm, not necessarily at the end of course, which may be what most of our listeners think of when they think of student feedback, but a lot of the work that we’ve done more recently has been about collecting midterm student feedback. As we know from research, this can help boost your end of course evaluations when you debrief it correctly. I always want to add that caveat when we say this, it isn’t a magic wand that we can wave and ensure that we get better evals at the end of the semester, but when we debrief it with our students correctly and meaningfully, one of the things we found when we looked at the research on it is that, yes, it can boost your end-of-term evaluations.

Rebecca: So we’re hoping we can dig into that midterm feedback aspect a bit more. In the Fall 24 issue of To Improve the Academy, you published a formative midterm feedback instrument that you developed and validated. Can you talk a little bit about this instrument and why faculty might want to use this instrument and midterm feedback just generally?

Claudia: Yeah, happily. The critical teaching behavior, midterm feedback instrument, we started implementing at Embry-Riddle in 2021 and we have since collected data on its use across the different departments and across different instructors. And one thing that I’m super excited about is that from the first year that we implemented it, we had about 20 or so faculty using the instrument per year, and now we are reaching about 20% of the Embry-Riddle faculty with that tool, which is pretty amazing. It has been very well received. It combines differently than some other midterm feedback processes. It combines multiple-choice rating questions with open-ended feedback. Generally, midterm feedback often focuses on only the qualitative responses, so open response feedback from students, and that has really resonated with the STEM faculty, specifically at our institution, because it gives them a place to look at, okay, here’s where we started, here is where we are next semester. This is what we had at midterm. We made changes, we talked to students. Now, looking at end-of-course feedback, we can see that there has been growth or not. So that’s been really helpful for a lot of faculty here, because we’ve had such a lot of participation with it, it also gave us really good data to look at: “Okay, does the tool that we’re using, is it actually statistically reliable and valid?” And so that is the study that we published in To Improve the Academy, we validated the tool and did a confirmatory factor analysis, and it was valid and it was reliable, but importantly also, as part of this study, we asked faculty on their perception of the tool, and we asked students to also tell us, “Okay, these are the questions that we’re asking in the survey, how do you interpret it? What does that mean to you when we’re asking this question? What would you look at in a course to give you information on how to answer the question?” And so triangulating all of that different information and data, we found that the instrument is working really well for students, for faculty, and also the data that we have shows that it is reliable and valid. So that was exciting to see.

Rebecca: It’s always nice when we take on a project like that, and it works out, right? [LAUGHTER]

Claudia: Absolutely

John: A lot of the teaching evaluations used in many departments often are not very well designed, and they often include many categories that students may not be the best source of judgment. One of the nice things about your evaluations are that they focus on observable behaviors that are evidence based and they are things that should be observable to students, and if they’re not observable to students, the instruments would reveal that in ways that suggest maybe the faculty needs to address those. So one of the things you suggest is that this instrument might also have some impact on the bias, which has been demonstrated to show up in student evaluations of teaching. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Claudia: Yeah, and you see me nodding along and getting really excited, because that is another thing that, when we first published the book and the article, we had some preliminary data that suggested, yes, it reduces bias broadly, but we actually had an opportunity to gather additional data on that and to look at that, and we are still in the final stages of preparing the data and analyzing it, but we have done some analysis on this now that shows that if we’re looking at multiple factors that all impact teaching and learning and student feedback in some way, the questions that we are asking with a critical teaching behaviors midterm feedback instrument actually show now that statistically, gender in particular, is no longer a significant factor. So that means that, basically, gender is not one of the demographic categories that seems to be influencing the student responses to the questions that we’re asking. We do see, in the data analysis that we have now, that teaching experience, so years of teaching, as well as age, are still statistically significant, but gender is one of the categories that is no longer statistically significant. So that was exciting to see.

John: You mentioned that age and years of teaching experience were still significant. What was the nature of the impact of teaching experience and age on the evaluations?

Claudia: So if we’re looking at the data that we have, it shows that teaching experience and age, so they go parallel, the longer teaching experience that you have, as well as the older you get, it generally signifies an increase in the rating that students give you on how frequently you are engaging them, on how frequently you are creating an inclusive teaching behavior in the classroom, on how frequently you are providing feedback that is meaningful to them. So overall it increases until around the plus 55 where it falls off. But that is also probably a limitation, because we had very few respondents in that age group. So, that’s what we found.

Rebecca: I can imagine at this point in the conversation, audience members might be like, yes, this sounds good, but what does it look like? Can you talk a little bit about what some of the questions are? You mentioned that there’s some multiple-choice questions, some open-ended questions. Obviously midterm implicates when in the semester you might implement this tool. Can you talk a little bit about what those questions actually say?

Lauren: So let me talk first about what midterm student feedback is. Obviously this is something we collect at midterm, specifically between weeks five and 10 is what research recommends. There are a lot of tools out there [LAUGHTER] to collect midterm feedback. The standard forms are all open-ended questions. Typically they’re two to three questions long, maybe a little bit longer if you as an instructor choose to add an open-ended question or two. The most common questions that are asked are: “What’s working well in this class? What’s not working? What additional feedback do you want to have or want to share?” There are also versions of this that look like, “What should I start doing? What should I stop doing? and What should I keep doing?” So I just want to put that out there that we are not the originators of midterm feedback. This has been around for a while, and there are lots of different ways of doing it, although they’re fairly similar and standard in the fact that they are qualitative, open ended. What makes ours different is that we did choose to depart from the purely qualitative aspect of this by introducing some quantitative questions. So with our feedback tool, there are still the standard questions: “What’s working well, what’s not working well?” From a data analysis perspective, I think it’s interesting to note that we chose to put the quantitative questions first on our survey for students. So we have on the validated tool 15 quantitative questions that students answer on a never to very frequently scale, and those questions are broken down by each of the CTB categories, except for reflect, because students really can’t see us reflecting on our teaching, so that’s not something we ask them to give feedback on. But an example question would be… so from the aligned category, “The instructor states the learning outcomes, development of specific skills and knowledge to be accomplished in the course assignments and activities.” And then students would answer never or very frequently. So each of these questions is designed to capture how often an instructor engages in particular behaviors that we know from the framework research are proven to promote student success. When the instructor gets this report, they see a breakdown of their behaviors by category, so that they’re able to look at the quantitative data and see overall strength by category. So for instance, you might see that you’re doing really well in “engage,” but students said that you only rarely or sometimes gave feedback that was helpful for them. So maybe the “assess” category is an area for development. So what’s nice about these quantitative questions is that it’s allowing you to get the nuance of individual behaviors while also capturing overall pictures of what’s going on in these categories from the student perspective. Now, I mentioned that we put the quantitative questions first on the survey. There’s some interesting stuff going on there in terms of what students end up putting down in their qualitative feedback, and this is something we would like to study in more depth, is how much does the language of the quantitative questions prime the students in terms of what they give feedback on and the language that they use. This is not something we’ve run a study on yet, because we’re running all sorts of other studies, but it is a study that we do plan to run on the data we’ve collected through midterm feedback, because if this bias study has shown us anything, the tool does help mitigate bias to some extent, if the tool also does some priming of students to help direct their feedback to particular areas of teaching and take them away from comments about “I love her shoes” or “I hate his shirts,” then it has an additional use factor, which is that the quantity of questions are doing some work to teach students how to give good feedback. That’s our hope, anyway.

Rebecca: So let’s imagine that I’m an instructor, and I use the midterm feedback form and I get some feedback about areas that maybe I’m doing well in, and areas that I might need to improve upon. What do you suggest are the instructor’s next steps?

Lauren: Well, I would suggest that you consult with your Center for Teaching and Learning. Oftentimes, this is a service that Centers for Teaching and Learning offer, and there are trained consultants like me and Claudia who can help you make sense of what you get out of that experience. In fact, we can help facilitate that experience as a neutral third party, which can help students feel like they’re not necessarily going to be judged on their responses. Even if you make it completely anonymous, there are always those students who say, “Well, but if you really want to, you can figure out who said what.” But if you have a neutral third party who is facilitating this experience, it can make it a better experience for students overall. Not everybody has the luxury of access to a Center for Teaching and Learning. And when we were designing our tools, we were thinking about that. So the next thing I would say is, if you don’t have a Center for Teaching and Learning and trained consultants, you do have colleagues. One of the things that is very important to us in this project is that we’re creating dialog around teaching and learning. So if you have a friend or a colleague who would also like midterm feedback, maybe you can conduct this for each other and have conversations with each other about this instrument. Now, of course, you can always just administer the tool yourself, collect the data and sit down to analyze it. If you’re going to sit down to analyze your own data, here’s what we have for you. If you request access to our folder of materials, you’ll see in there an Excel spreadsheet that Claudia, who is an Excel guru compared to me, has created that will help you decipher the quantitative data. It’ll spit out some really nice graphics for you to be able to analyze, but I’m super excited to be able to share that we’ve also developed a way to help you make sense of the qualitative feedback on teaching. This is where we are debuting the CTB FIT, critical teaching behaviors feedback insight tool that is an AI-powered platform that we developed in conjunction with a student at Georgia Tech, Elliot Roe, and his partner in crime, Duncan Johnson, who’s at Tufts. And these students helped us train the AI platform on the critical teaching behaviors categories, again, not including “reflect,” because it’s not something that students can give feedback on. And what this platform will do is you feed it the student feedback, and it will output an Excel spreadsheet for you where it tags the qualitative data with the five CTB categories. It’ll pull out snippets and code them into each of the CTB categories. Then it will do a count of the number of times it tags the category and it will produce a nice bar graph, so you get a visual of how many times something shows up, for instance. This has been really useful to the faculty who are conducting midterm feedback. We’ve gotten some great preliminary insights from faculty saying that this helps them make sense faster of the data that they have collected from students, and it helps them focus less on that one-off comment, you know, the one, the one that gets under your skin, and you have all these other wonderful comments praising your teaching, but there’s that one that sticks with you, because we just can’t shake the one negative comment. This is why it’s so helpful to have a consultant do this, or to have a peer do this, because they can move you past the one negative comment. But if you’re doing it for yourself, it’s so easy to get hung up and miss the bigger picture. What FIT does is it organizes the data, provides you AI summaries in each of the CTB categories that it tags so that you’re not focused in on that one negative piece of feedback, you can now focus on the big picture and take away insights that allow you to report back to your students and make informed decisions about how you’re going to teach your class. Claudia, what would you add?

Claudia: Just reiterating, I think the importance of using this also as a tool for conversation. Lauren already mentioned that colleagues can play a really important role in helping us make sense of this. We have the tool that’s really available for anybody to use who’s interested. But I think the other important thing to mention also is when we’re looking at the feedback that we are receiving, one important conversation partner is also our students, and so making sure that whatever we’re learning from the feedback, whether that is positive or room for improvement, we go back to the students and say, “Hey, I learned this from you. I appreciate you for providing the feedback. And here’s something that I can change, maybe in response, here’s something that I will not change because I have a good reason. Let me explain that.” But yeah, so I think just reiterating the importance that students have in this process, not just in providing the feedback, but also being a conversation partner with us.

Lauren: And I would close that thought by adding to do this recent study that we’re working on, we ran a couple of focus groups with faculty. One of the really interesting insights that came out of that focus group for me was that faculty who do midterm feedback and debrief it with their students, go back and they talk to them about what’s not working in the class, what they can do to change it, and what they don’t have the power to change. But there was this big revelatory moment in the conversation where a faculty member said, “I have never talked to my students about what they say is working well. I’ve never gone back and said, ‘Thank you for letting me know.’ I have never debriefed that with them.” So if there’s anyone else out there who is realizing that they also only focus on what’s not working and what they can and can’t change, this was a really great moment where faculty came together and said, “Oh, we also need to talk to our students about the positive feedback that they’re giving on our teaching and what is working. So that’s part of the loop that we need to close as well.”

John: Now, you mentioned that this is an AI tool. Was it created as a GPT in ChatGPT, or did you use some other system for creating it?

Lauren: This is a question primarily for Elliot Roe, who’s not here today, but Elliot created a pipeline that is trained on the critical teaching behaviors, and it goes to ChatGPT. So what we were careful to do thinking about: this is student data, this is faculty data, we want to protect privacy. We don’t store your data. First of all, that costs a lot of money, and second of all, that gets into all sorts of privacy concerns. So if you run any sort of data through the platform, you need to download that report immediately, or the next time you go to run a report, it will be gone. So it’s actually stored in your cache, it is not stored on our site, so that data belongs to you. As we’ve set it up, it’s not saving the data in any way, shape, or form, and it’s not being used to train ChatGPT on anything, as far as we can tell from talking with Elliot, who is our technological guru here.

John: We have encouraged faculty to consider using ChatGPT on anonymous student surveys on our campus, because it has all those nice advantages that you’ve talked about, that it can summarize things very nicely, and it can focus on the major themes that occur, and it can also offer some suggestions on ways in which faculty might even address that if that’s programmed into the chatbot. So it sounds like a really great tool. Are you sharing this more widely beyond your campus?

Lauren: Yes, that is the goal. It’s free to use where we want to keep it free to use, because our goal is to improve teaching in higher education, and we believe that this is a tool that can do that. To be clear, you’re not going to sign into ChatGPT when you do this, CTB FIT is its own platform that you sign into and put the data into and it will output the Excel spreadsheet for you through that platform. We do ask you to sign up. One of the ways that we’re trying to protect privacy and security is to have sign ups, but that’s not because there’s a pay wall, it’s just because that’s an additional security measure to have a sign up on it. So we’re putting it out there. We hope that faculty use it. Our idea behind this is that, yes, you can run your data through any AI platform you want, and it will give you some insights, and it will probably do some analysis for you. The problem I’ve seen when I run data through it is that it’s not trained on any sort of teaching database in particular, so depending on its mood that day, [LAUGHTER] you will get all sorts of different answers out of it, and some of them might be good, but as we know, some of them might not be. We think that the value of FIT is that it’s grounded in that common language. So if you get your report back and you see that students are seeing a dearth of behaviors, for instance, in the “Engage” category, and you want to know what behaviors you could implement in the “Engage” category, well, we’ve got a whole book on that for you. You can go to the chapter, you can reference the research that we’ve done. You can dig deeper into that category. There is a real knowledge base behind this platform that allows faculty to dig deeper into their own teaching. You can dig as deep as you want. You can go reference the chapter in the book. You can start looking at the references and go look at the research for yourself, and then the book, of course, is structured to produce reflection, so that the reflection that faculty engage in produces growth. So if you then want to set a goal for growth, we’ve also got tools in the book to help you do that. So really, the idea of FIT is that it can be as surface-level analysis of data as you want it to be, but because there’s this knowledge base behind it, you can dig deeper and deeper and deeper as much as you want.

Rebecca: One of the things that you’ve talked about is that debrief, but I imagine the setup of the midterm feedback is equally as important. So can you talk a little bit about what the setup is as you present the opportunity for feedback to students, as well as what that debrief ideally looks like? You’ve hinted at some of those things, but I know people are always looking for very concrete, tangible ways of doing things.

Claudia: Yeah. And so when we are facilitating midterm feedback as a third-party facilitator from the Center for Teaching and Learning, we usually go into the classes, if it is a face-to-face class, and give that introduction to students, telling them that this is something that’s voluntary for the faculty. They are not required to do that. They are engaging in midterm feedback because they really want to know how things are going for the students and whether the strategies and materials that they have chosen are meeting the students’ needs, and so emphasizing that it’s voluntary, but then also telling students that not all feedback is equal. And so if I’m just saying, “Oh, this class is awesome, that is great affirmation, but it does not help me really get better at my teaching.” And so also telling the students how important it is to think about providing feedback that is specific and actionable, pointing out, if they are saying it’s amazing presentations, giving some more feedback on well the PowerPoints are great, or it’s a great interactive lecture that helps me think along. So really providing some of that detail. If we are not in a face-to-face classroom, we do have that information also available as a script that faculty can use and then share with their students through the learning management system, as an announcement, again, mentioning it’s voluntary, it’s really helping me, as the instructor in your class, grow, it’s helping you as a student provide me feedback now, rather than waiting until the end of the term, please provide feedback that is as specific as possible. And so that is usually what the setup looks like. For the debrief for our campus, we are meeting with the faculty member one one-on-one to facilitate the debrief, and it is really about the conversation where we are looking at the data primarily and then make sense of it together. So for us, it is really important to not be prescriptive, even if we’re saying, “Oh yes, maybe engagement is a category where there’s room to grow,” it is not that we’re saying, “Oh okay, engagement is not good right now, let’s do think-pair-share every single day of the week.” So really thinking through also there are many ways in which we can engage our students. And what are some options that really work for your course, for your context, if you are online, face to face, what is your personality like? What is your teaching persona? And really finding strategies that are helpful for the individual, rather than a silver bullet that works across the board, which doesn’t exist.

John: One of the things I really liked about your book is part two. Part one, I really liked it was very comprehensive, and it provided some really good strategies that are evidence based. But the second part of it, and the appendices as well, are very helpful, because a lot of faculty, especially when they start their teaching career, but often continuing for quite a while, suddenly get hit with this need to write up a summary of their teaching activities and a reflection on their teaching that’s used for promotion and tenure. And there’s very few resources out there that address that, and your book does a really nice job of giving faculty information on what they may want to include in these reports and what they may want to submit as part of the reflection. This seems like a gap in the professional development literature that your book fills very nicely.

Lauren: First of all, thank you, [LAUGHTER] that’s a lovely compliment. When we were developing this framework, the need to have the conversations around teaching grounded in the same language was a paramount issue on the campus we were working at, but we were very attuned to the needs to document teaching, because this is part of the conversation. So we can have conversations with peers, we can have conversations with administrators, we can have conversations with students. Those are sort of the three different types of conversations we have, and they all need to be grounded in the literature of good teaching. But it’s really hard to have that conversation in any sort of personalized way if you have none of your own data to back it up. This is a very timely conversation, because just yesterday, I ran a two-hour session on reflecting on teaching for faculty at Georgia Tech, and part of what we did is we started with, “What do you think are your teaching strengths and what are your areas for growth?” We just put that out there into the ether and let them put something down. But after we had talked about the CTB framework, we went through a more structured teaching practices inventory and had faculty sit down and go through the framework and say, “What are you actually doing in each of these categories? Now look at it across categories. What is your teaching strength and what is your area for growth? How does that compare with what you set when we first started this session and you had no common language, you had no scaffolding to help you make that decision?” It was a really interesting conversation, because someone said “it was hard,” like, “well, it was hard in the sense that it was work. It was a lot of work to sit down and really look this closely at my teaching.” So I think part of the reason this doesn’t happen more often is because faculty are busy. We’re busy people already, and making time to formally reflect on teaching is difficult because it’s just another thing that we don’t have time for, and it seems like there’s always another fire that we need to put out. So it doesn’t become a fire to put out until you need to create your materials for promotion, and then it’s an issue because you haven’t created any of this documentation along the way. The goal of our book is to help faculty reflect as they go to build in just a little bit of time to do that structured reflection so that they can identify areas of strength and set intentional areas for growth. Why? Because a narrative of growth over time is persuasive, and when you go up for promotion, being able to show intentional goals, data you’ve collected in support of those goals and data doesn’t have to be a full-blown research study. It can be student feedback over time that shows you’re getting stronger in these categories. Having all of these aligned CTB tools gives you a common language to collect data from students, peers, and yourself, so that when you go to create that portfolio to showcase what you’ve done, you no longer have to reconcile “My peers are talking about my teaching this way, but students talk about teaching this way, and admin understands it this way. How do I put all these different perspectives together in a way that’s going to make any sense when they seem to all be speaking different languages?” Well, the tools we’ve developed are all aligned to the same common language, and when you go to put together your portfolio, it’s that much more powerful and persuasive to have the common language, to have collected the data over time, as opposed to be sitting down at the last minute saying, “I’ve got to put this together, and now I’ve got to figure out what I did,” as opposed to 10 minutes a week could allow you to create a much stronger teaching portfolio.

John: And you provide a number of resources in various appendices at the end of the book that faculty can use for some of these purposes. C ould you just briefly talk a little bit about what’s included in these appendices?

Claudia: Yeah, so in the appendices we have the framework, of course, but also we have the peer observation report form, as well as associated materials that help peers set up the observation as for information before we even go into the classroom, or before we go into the online class. It has a prior version of the midterm feedback, so there is an updated version that’s available on our online share documents that anybody can ask for, but it gives a nice preview. But it also has some reflection questions, as Lauren said, that help prompt some of the reflection for faculty to start putting together the material into a coherent format for a portfolio. Also you mentioned it is Creative Commons licensed, and that is true, that was also an intentional choice, because we recognize that while the critical teaching behaviors framework, we hope, provides a great starting point for everybody, there are institutional preferences. Sometimes, when it comes to language, there are institutional focus areas that may not necessarily be captured with what we are providing. And so it is intentionally Creative Commons licensed. So it is a starting point that people can build on, based on departmental needs, based on their individual needs based on institutional needs.

Lauren: It was important to us that these materials be Creative Commons licensed for meeting contextual needs. I think as much as we recognized that a common language was necessary in higher ed, we also recognized that institutional context matters, individual context matters, and that there can’t be one definitive way of doing things. The Creative Commons license doesn’t just allow you to adapt to your context. It allows you to make these multifunctional. So let’s say that you really want to do a dive into your assessed behaviors, and you want to have a peer observation report that’s just focusing on your assessed behaviors. You can do that if you have an institutional initiative. Down here in the south we have quality enhancement plans for our accreditation. Let’s say you wanted to focus on just one aspect of the critical teaching behaviors to align with institutional objectives. You can do that. The only thing that’s not Creative Commons licensed is the framework itself. So that still stands, but we’ve had a number of institutions take that as a place to develop their own institutional framework. So Harvey Mudd, in particular, has done a great job with this. Most recently, they even added a whole new category on mentorship, because that meets their campus need. But we’ve worked with a number of institutions now that have really done a good job of taking this not as: “we told you, this is the language,” but saying “somebody went out and did the research for us so we can develop the language that we use here at our institution.” We see more and more of this happening, but when it’s most effective is when it’s grounded in evidence-based practice. And not everybody has the time to go out and do that research, but apparently we did, [LAUGHTER]so we went out and provided that for people to go and build their own frameworks.

Rebecca: It’s always nice when there’s a starting point and you don’t have to [LAUGHTER] start from scratch, and that there’s templates and things that you can iterate on so that you can move forward faster. So we always wrap up by asking, what’s next? You’ve given a little preview, but…

Claudia: We just look forward to talking more about critical teaching behaviors no matter what, because we believe it can make a huge difference in fostering conversations across campuses. But then also, as Lauren said, we are really looking into peer observation, more specifically, as a next focus to really dig deeper, as a way to continue those conversations, as a way to apply critical teaching behaviors, but also as a way, again, to have a starting place to then customize something that meets somebody else’s context.

Lauren: So we always have a little bit too much in the way of what’s next. [LAUGHTER] In the way of what’s next. I think we would like to continue the research projects on midterm feedback in particular. So midterm feedback, we would like to do that study on whether the quantitative questions have any bearing on the qualitative responses we’re getting from students. That is an area we’d like to follow up on, but we do have that book contract, and we’re supposed to have that manuscript done by June of 2026, so that’s gonna have to take precedence over any other projects that we might want to delve into in the next year.

Rebecca: Well, thanks so much for joining us today and sharing some of your work and the framework.

Lauren: Thank you for having us.

Claudia: Thank you for having us. It’s been great.

John: Thank you for joining us. And again, this book is an excellent resource for faculty at any stage of their teaching.

[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]

389. Inclusive Math Instruction

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

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

Transcript

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

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

Aris: Thank you for having me.

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

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

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

Aris: Yeah, that’s right. [LAUGHTER]

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

John: Back to an old favorite.

Rebecca: It is, yeah.

John: And I am drinking Lady Grey.

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

Aris: Excellent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aris: That’s right.

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

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

John: Sometimes we have to.

Aris: That’s right.

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

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

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

Aris: That is fantastic. That’s fantastic.

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

Aris: Absolutely, absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: …sounds like a good balance.

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

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

Aris: It’s a pleasure. Thank you.

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

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]