461. Postdocs

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

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

Show Notes

Transcript

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Nice. How about you, Victoria?

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

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

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

Victoria: Lovely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: What fields are postdocs most common in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: Excellent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

434. TUnE Bio

Students planning to major in STEM fields, especially students from groups historically underrepresented in these fields, are often deterred by their experiences in introductory courses. In this episode, Sarah Rose Cavanagh joins us to discuss an NSF-funded initiative designed to enhance student success in introductory Biology classes.

Sarah is a psychologist and the author of four books related to teaching and learning. She is the senior associate director for teaching and learning and associate professor of practice at Simmons University and also is a regular contributor to The Chronicle and many other publications. Sarah often serves as a keynote speaker and we were very fortunate to have her join us for a keynote address at a recent Academic Affairs Retreat on our  campus.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Students planning to major in STEM fields, especially students from groups historically underrepresented in these fields, are often deterred by their experiences in introductory courses. In this episode, we explore an NSF-funded initiative designed to enhance student success in introductory Biology 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]

John: Our guest today is Sarah Rose Cavanagh. Sarah is a psychologist and the author of four books related to teaching and learning. She is the senior associate director for teaching and learning and associate professor of practice at Simmons University and also is a regular contributor to The Chronicle and many other publications. Sarah often serves as a keynote speaker and we were very fortunate to have her join us for a keynote address at a recent Academic Affairs Retreat on our campus. We’re also looking forward to her upcoming keynote address at the SUNY Conference on Instruction and Technology later this year in May. Welcome back, Sarah.

Sarah: Thanks for having me.

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

Sarah: Ah… I never am. I actually have a confession. I’m actually drinking a Celsius energy drink. [LAUGHTER] I’ve graduated from even coffee, but I only do this. I’m like, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but Zoran Mamdani, he has a Red Bull once a week, and so, like Mamdani, I have a Celsius once a week. Gives me a real boost.

Rebecca: Right now is the time. We’re catching you at this moment this week?

Sarah: Well, yes, and we also ran out of coffee filters, so… [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: That’ll do it. How about you, John?

John: I am drinking an Irish Breakfast tea today.

Rebecca: Oh, seems to be like a new favorite, John.

John: Actually, it’s because we’re snowed in and most of my other teas are up at the office.

Rebecca: I have an English afternoon today.

Sarah: What time of day is it? This seems to be a conflict. One of you is doing breakfast? One of you is afternoon.

John: It is afternoon, isn’t it?

Rebecca: yeah, I don’t know. Yesterday we recorded at 5pm and we both had breakfast teas, so… [LAUGHTER]

John: We did.

Rebecca: It might just be an indicator of how much caffeine we needed at a given time. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: Gotcha.

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss the TUnE-Bio project, an NSF-funded academic initiative, for which you are a principal investigator and network leader. Can you give our listeners an overview of this project?

Sarah: Sure. So the focus of the project’s right in our title. So it’s Transforming Learning and Equity in Undergraduate Biology Education by Cultivating an Ecosystem of Feedback, which is a big mouthful, so we call it TUnE-Bio. So we’re tuning biology education. And the focus of the project is really on tackling the problem of high attrition and weed out in undergraduate biology education, and by extension, STEM fields in general, the fact that so many students come to the study of biology and the study of STEM fields in general and want to be doctors and surgeons and scientists, and then they encounter difficulties in their introductory courses and leave for other majors. There’s something that is known as the STEM grading penalty, which is when students get really low course grades in STEM courses, but then they get high grades in their other courses, then that in particular seems to kind of lure them out of the field. And we want to change that, in general, because we need more scientists and we need more nurses and surgeons, but we also want to change that, because there’s also a lot of inequities in terms of who is weeded out, and disproportionately women, students of various races and ethnicities, first-generation status. All these things tend to increase the chances that you will leave STEM fields, and we want a really educated, diverse STEM workforce, and so we’re really trying to do something about that by improving pedagogy.

Rebecca: Sounds like a good initiative… [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: We think so.

Rebecca: …right up our alley around here, right? [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: At the beginning of the project, you first gathered information on the current landscape of biology education using surveys and focus groups. Can you tell us a little bit about the process of data collection?

Sarah: Yeah, sure. So we started this grant with what’s called an incubator. So NSF has two versions of this particular mechanism, and the incubator is meant to, just like it sounds, to give you a little bit of money to start building a network, start showing the NSF that you can do what you are promising to do. And then we got a full version of the grant a few years later. So this really goes all the way back to, I think, 2020, and we were unsuccessful a few times before we were successful. [LAUGHTER] So it actually goes back to more like 2018, I think, but we got the incubator grant, and one of the things reviewers said to us is, all right, you’re saying you want to innovate in pedagogy in biology, but before you can innovate, don’t you need to know the current state of play, like, what are people doing in their classrooms currently, before you start asking them to do something different, like, maybe they’re already innovating. So we took that charge, and in the incubator year or two, we did a really large survey of people who were teaching introductory biology, all sorts of different institutions all over the country, about 300 of them, and then did qualitative interviews of 27, I think, of them… took a deeper dive. And we’re really asking people about their practices and philosophies in teaching intro bio. What were they doing in terms of assessment, in terms of feedback, in terms of grading? We asked about what they perceived as barriers to innovation. In the early phases, we’re a little more focused on alternative grading. And so we asked a lot of questions about: had they heard of it? had they tried it? Questions about that. And so that was our attempt to figure out the landscape before we started innovating with the full proposal.

John: And what did the data collection tell you about the landscape?

Sarah: Well, first, I have to say that I do think we got a bit of an unusual sample. It’s always the case in research, because we tried to keep the survey under 15 minutes. But still, who has 15 minutes to do something completely optional, and then the people who spoke with us in the qualitative interview study, that was a significant investment of time. And so I do think we got a sample of people who were really interested in pedagogy already, but, that said, we saw a lot of innovation already. So the old school model of two exams and a final in intro courses, we really didn’t see a lot of that. People were using a lot of quizzes, a lot of clickers. They were really thinking deeply, especially in the interviews. They had thought deeply about equity. A lot of the folks we talked to, they really felt the pull of doing more like differentiated instruction and really changing their pedagogy, student by student. And had a lot of frustrations with not being able to find the time to really do that better. And we also asked about barriers to innovation. And shockingly, the top three barriers were time, time, and time, I think the top was no time to implement. The second was the perception that some of these innovations would take more time. And then the third was no time to even like, figure it out, do the reading, restructure the course ahead of time, do those things. So we saw a lot of innovation, but a lot of desire for more, I think.

Rebecca: So that kind of sets the ground for the pedagogical side of the landscape. Can you go into a little bit more detail about attrition rates and the equity gaps that the project is meant to overcome?

Sarah: Yeah, sure. So a pretty significant number of students leave early STEM education for other majors, and it does seem like investigations that have probed the why of that and the motivation has really found it tying to these early low grades in these introductory courses, and I think, in particular, students who are drawn to health sciences, just the way everything set up in secondary education, tend to be students who are quite used to getting high grades, [LAUGHTER] and so having this experience of just getting As and As and As and then you hit college, and you take Intro bio, and then all of a sudden you have a C for the first time in your life. And that being very alarming. There’s also, and certainly we heard this in the survey and the interviews, in terms of the equity, something that people really thought a lot about and felt very deeply about, was the fact that, especially courses that are introductory courses, like intro bio, students would be coming to them with very different backgrounds. Some students had taken AP Bio with a tutor and all these extra meetings and already knew half the material that they were going to be taught. And other students from lower-resourced high schools did not have that experience, and faculty really struggled with that. Starting out from the gate, these students were on paths to differential outcomes, and then that would shape whether they stayed with the STEM study or not. And none of them had really easy solutions, and one of our goals in going forward is trying to give faculty tools to improve pedagogy in ways that equitize that landscape a little bit more. I mean, that basic problem is still always going to be there. It’s a societal structural problem. But if we can nudge faculty to improve how much feedback they’re giving, how motivational that feedback is, how timely it is, all of these things that maybe we can bring those students on those two paths a little closer together.

John: This issue of disparate gender outcomes in STEM fields is something we addressed a little bit on an earlier podcast with Peter Arcidiacono. This seems to be common in many disciplines, so addressing these issues, I think, could be really helpful. And one of the things that really impressed me was looking at the people in the network, or the people who are involved in this program. I’m not a biologist, but I recognize an awful lot of the names there. How was the TUnE-Bio network assembled?

Sarah: Dialing it back to those incubator years, and before our unsuccessful to successful outcomes, originally, Jim Lang and I were co-PIs, so we were both still at Assumption, and were both in the same center, and so we were working together on this, and I was actually really new to the field of teaching and learning, and didn’t know a lot of people. I started out as a psychology, emotion science, person, and only in the last 8 to 10 years moved into teaching and learning. So a lot of them Jim recommended, and then it was like a snowball. So we recommended them and some of those people said, “No, but have you thought about asking this person?” And so we kind of snowballed out, and we had our steering committee, we asked them for recommendations, and they went out from that. And then Jim retired. Then that’s when Michele Lemons my co PI who is a neuroscientist, biologist at Assumption, that’s when she joined. Jim’s still on our steering committee, but now Michele and I are co-PIs on the full proposal, and then we did a big webinar, we did a big launch meeting, and we just actively recruited. So it’s really kind of a snowball method. Also, Bryan Dewsbury is on our steering committee, and he has a beautiful essay, I think, called the soul of my pedagogy in Scientific American, and I had read that, and I was like, “Let’s invite that guy,” [LAUGHTER] and Jim was like, “Great suggestion.”

Rebecca: It’s always fun to see all of those folks assembled in the same place, virtually or otherwise. [LAUGHTER] How does this project connect to the concept of compassionate challenge that you focused on in Mind over Monsters?

Sarah: Well, since we’re focused on feedback, and I think we’ll talk about that in a little bit more, I see feedback at the heart of compassionate challenge. So my framing of compassionate challenge is that students, to be motivated and to learn effectively, they need both compassion and challenge, kind of that false dichotomy that we get into and dueling Chronicle op eds between like, “oh academic rigor” and “oh student focusedness.” Like we need all of it. And I think that we respond best and are motivated when we both are in a place where we feel psychological safety and where we feel understood and seen as people, but then where we also are challenged to rise to expectations. And feedback, I think, is just so critical for student learning, because what feedback is, is you’re giving students information about “okay, where are you at in your current learning journey, and where could you go, and how can you get there?” In that way, it’s stretching them saying, like, “Great job at the learning so far, but here’s all the other places we could go.” [LAUGHTER] But then we’re really focused in the project, on how can we give better feedback, and better feedback being compassionate, growth mindset, motivational, offered in time that they can use it, including more revisions of work, so that there’s a reason for them to read the feedback. If they assess them on a learning outcome, you give them feedback on how they did, and then they’re never assessed on that learning outcome again, I wouldn’t read that feedback. [LAUGHTER] And so I think feedback is really at the heart of compassionate challenge.

John: So right now, it sounds like much of the work of the group is done in working groups, and you have five working groups which are focused around different ways of providing that feedback. Could you talk a little bit about some of the work of these working groups?

Sarah: Absolutely, in the grant, what we’re doing currently is we’re developing tool kits, so we want to give faculty really practical ways that they could improve their feedback. And one of the other aspects of the grant is that it intentionally puts in the same room, often the same Zoom room, that we are gathering in person this May, educational developers and people from the scholarship of teaching and learning, and then biologists. And so we’re putting these minds together so that the biologists can provide the context of teaching biology, and then educational developers can provide the scholarship on teaching and learning. And we want to put them all together in a room, develop these toolkits that will help biology faculty teach in ways that improve feedback. And so one of the first things we did is we assembled these toolkit working groups, as you’re referencing John, and we just today decided to call them twigs. We keep saying T, W, G, and that’s very difficult to say out loud. And then we were on a meeting with one of our steering committee members, Linda Fergusson-Kolmes, and she was like, I keep wanting to call it twig. And I was like, “Let’s do it. Let’s do it.” So these twigs, [LAUGHTER] these each have co-leaders, and then they have members who are also amazing folks, and they’re focused on five different themes. So those themes are, first, how do we get students motivated to actually use feedback and actually read it? Because there’s some data that suggests that, especially when feedback is paired with a poor grade, students won’t even read it. So one group is developing tools to help faculty motivate students to uptake and use that feedback. Another is focused on peer feedback. Some of the tools in that toolkit will relate to LAs, learning assistants and teaching assistants, but then also ways that you can provide peer feedback in class. So motivation, peer feedback. One group’s all focused on classroom assessment techniques like clicker questions and other ways to quickly assess and get feedback on student learning. One of the groups is developing a toolkit on the seven principles of good feedback, asset-based feedback. And then finally, my favorite topic in the world, but we have some lovely volunteers who are willing to go there, AI. [LAUGHTER] if we’re doing something on feedback, they have a challenge ahead of them.

John: I don’t think we’ve had a podcast in the last couple of years that have not at least mentioned AI in some way.

Rebecca: This was yours, Sarah. [LAUGHTER] Now you can move on. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: Yes, we’re done. Check the box. Check the box.

Rebecca: One of the things that we often hear is like feedback and grading are intermingled or tangled up together. Can you talk a little bit about decoupling of the two?

Sarah: Yeah, sure. We definitely saw this, especially in the qualitative interview. We tried to ask faculty separately about assessment, feedback, and grading, and we defined those for them ahead of time and in the process of the interview. And we defined feedback as information that’s given to students about the current state of learning or their performance on the assessment, other than grading. And then we wanted grading to be grading. Faculty found that very difficult to respond to those three things separately, because they’re all so integrated, and grading is one form of feedback, of course. We really tried to get them to focus more on things like written feedback on short-answer questions, and we have a subcommittee working on the qualitative interview coding. That’s Brian Dewsbury and Lindsay Wheeler and Michele and I, and we have a conceptual model of feedback that we’re building, and we really are thinking of feedback even as things like body language in response to students’ questions, like really expansively about feedback. And I think that the more we can decouple feedback from grading the better. And there’s actually studies showing that if you give feedback before you give the grade, if you like, kind of withhold the grade and you give the feedback, students are more likely to use it and implement it, because I think that the emotional power of the grade just blows everything else out.

Rebecca: As in, like the grade feels too final?

Sarah: Yeah, and if the grade is lower than you expected or desired, especially if it’s significantly lower, I think a lot of students get very anxious, and it can be very difficult to think really logically when your body’s all kind of in a disarray.

John: For many years, when I gave back exams, the students who did well would sit there and they’d be really happy and really not focused that much on going over it and answering questions, and the students that did badly just look kind of unhappy and just kind of set their scowling, which is one of the reasons why I switched to two-stage exams, where they took it first individually, and then it was such a different experience. I remember the time I took a short video clip of the students in the second stage, and I shared it with Rebecca, because it was just so impressive to see them actively discussing things and working through it, because it was so different than earlier experiences going over exams in class.

Sarah: Yeah, I love two stage exams.

John: And I’m reinstituting them after moving away during COVID [LAUGHTER] in one of the classes that I’m teaching. I’m looking forward to that again. You mentioned before that one of the main barriers that faculty face in trying to implement things was time, and certainly that’s a major factor. But are those the only barriers that faculty face when they try to change their teaching techniques, especially if they’re younger faculty, junior faculty in departments which may not all be using these types of techniques.

Sarah: Right off the bat, you identified one of the major ones that we heard is, does your department support innovation, and is there that support? And another thing that came up a lot, and I see this a lot across all my work in different institutions, is students [LAUGHTER] often resist innovations. And I think health science students tend to be disproportionately this type of student who is used to a certain level of grades and a certain level of positive feedback from their secondary education, and then they hit college and they want to do that same thing. And this has always worked for them, you know, these big exams, memorizing stuff, putting out the answer, like that’s worked for them in the past. And so I find when I’m working with faculty who are innovating, especially in the arena of grading, they get the most resistance from the students, who probably are going to get an A at the end of the day, because of that resistance. But those two things can combine, and I saw this at my previous institution, in the biology department actually, and there were some faculty who were really doing innovative stuff, both with grading, but also with active learning and kind of flipped classroom sorts of things. But then most of the department was not doing that, and they experienced more student resistance, I think, because they were in this setting where students would have that reassuring kind of traditional experience in other faculty at that institution, and then they would hit this one course with all this innovation and dislike it more than if more the department were innovating. So that’s another big one. There’s also, and I think this was in your question as well, but precarity of position, and that was one thing that we asked about on the survey so that we could contextualize the responses. Contract faculty and pre-tenure faculty, sometimes they innovate somehow, and it goes not so well, and then they really get burned on their course evaluations at the end of the semester, that that could put their livelihood at risk or their tenure trajectory. So that’s another big barrier, time, time, time, departments, really large classes, that it being difficult to increase the amount of feedback you’re giving students, especially things like written feedback or in person, audio feedback. If you have 500 students, that’s very difficult. So large class sizes.

Rebecca: One of the innovations you mentioned at the top was about alternative grading practices. And given that low grades are discouraging, and certainly one of the barriers for students succeeding in STEM fields, how does alternative grading sit with some of the recommendations coming out of your network?

Sarah: Interestingly, we were more focused on alternative grading in the early stages of the grant, we actually thought that was going to be a major focus of the grant, so the incubator was not honed in on feedback. It was more broadly assessment, feedback, and grading, and we asked all those questions about alternative grading. We moved toward feedback for a couple of different reasons, one being our sense that there was already amazing work being done on alternative grading by other networks and other authors, an entire ungrading conference, and feeling like that need was already being filled a little bit in the world of teaching and learning. But then also, we observed two things in the surveys and the interviews. One of the questions we asked is, How aware of these alternative grading methods? And then we asked about a bunch of critiques of traditional grading, and the extent to which people agreed or disagreed with them, and whether they had tried them, if they hadn’t tried them, why? And there were a lot of folks kind of innovating at the margins. So they weren’t going full ungrading, but they were including pieces of that, and there was some resistance to it. We heard from some people that they were not interested in it because of a variety of reasons, and so we didn’t see as high interest as we might have expected on alternative grading. But then we also saw that people were most dissatisfied with their feedback practices. So when we asked people to rate how satisfied they were with their current assessment feedback and grading practices, we saw overall, a fair degree of satisfaction, but much lower for feedback, significantly lower than for assessment or grading. And this came up on the interviews as well, that we heard a lot of dissatisfaction. People would often wince, [LAUGHTER] when we’re like, “What about your feedback? How satisfied are you with how often and the types of feedback you give?” And they would be like, “Oh, I should do better.” [LAUGHTER] So we saw that, both on the survey and the interviews, with such a high degree of interest in improving feedback compared to assessment and grading. And then also, we felt like all the alternative grading folks were already doing a great job working on that, and we thought we could maybe contribute more and have more of a novel contribution if we honed in on feedback instead.

John: So this project has been going on for quite a while now. What are the next stages?

Sarah: The next stage is very exciting. So the twigs, the toolkit working groups with the five focuses, have been working really hard, and we’re so grateful to them developing a draft of their toolkits. And then in May, we’re going to gather at Simmons University in Boston, although it’s going to be a hybrid meeting. So some folks will be joining virtually, but a lot of us will be in person, and the toolkit working groups are going to present their toolkits to the rest of the network, so not just people on twigs and the steering committee, but also people involved in the network more generally, and we’re going to give them, wait for it, feedback, [LAUGHTER] feedback on their toolkits, and then they will have a whole another year to refine the toolkits based on the network’s feedback on the toolkits, what people would see is useful to include or ways they could shape or tune the toolkits. And then there’s a last stage of the grant. The last two years of the grant is actually, and this is one of the reasons why I’m really happy to be talking with you today, maybe it can spark some interest out there. We also are going to offer some money from the grant to form regional hubs to apply for some funding to use the toolkits in local events. And so we imagine maybe there’d be like New England, Midwest, West Coast, and a couple different institutions can gather together. There’s a few stipulations. There has to be at least one community college or minority-serving institution involved from a non-deficit framework. There has to be multiple institutions interested, someone willing to host, but they can apply for these kind of vouchers to use, to bring in a speaker, or pay for some food or something in these regional events, to use some part of the toolkit in an event regionally.

Rebecca: It’s an exciting new development.

Sarah: Yeah. I like the idea of it. You just give people money to improve pedagogy and gather together. It’s like rare. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: It’s a nice luxury. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: Yeah.

Rebecca: Weeding out is not just a biology thing. [LAUGHTER] It’s common in a lot of different STEM departments. Do you see that the recommendations from the TUnE-Bio project to be applied and expand maybe to these other disciplines as well?

Sarah: Absolutely, and we know it’s not just STEM but certainly feedbacks everybody. And we’re focused on undergraduate biology because that’s what the money’s for, [LAUGHTER] but a lot of us have at the heart, we just want to improve pedagogy across the board, and a lot of the toolkits, as they’re being developed, because we’ve been meeting with the twig co-chairs regularly… I think the classroom assessment technique twig is a little more biology focused. I think they’re developing actual biology modules that people can use in intro bio, but a lot of the other ones, certainly the seven principles of asset-based feedback and how to get students be motivated to implement feedback are not going to be biology specific, and are going to be useful to anyone teaching anything, I think. And the toolkits will be distributed through the regional hubs, but they’re also going to be just downloadable. We’re going to put them on our Qubes site. Qubes is a open website run by the NSF, and we have a membership. So all of these toolkits, people and teaching centers can download a workshop in a box. People who are teaching in their individual class can download the peer feedback, how to train students to give better peer feedback, so they’ll be widely open to everyone, and a lot of them are not going to be biology specific or stem specific.

John: When we were talking about the AI groups, you didn’t seem quite as enthused about the AI twig. Could you talk a little bit about some of your concerns about the increasing reliance on AI in higher ed?

Sarah: Yeah, we could have a whole thing about AI. I don’t want to have a whole [LAUGHTER] conversation about AI, but Pooja Agarwal, I don’t know if you know her, she does retrieval practice, is a widely known speaker in higher ed, but we had a bunch of meetings. We were going to do an edited collection called F-A-I, and it was all going to be just critical AI. So I’m not a fan of AI. I do think there are roles for AI in feedback, in particular, and I’m not completely resistant to that. And I think that if a student were studying alone in their dorm anyway, but there was some kind of responsive tutoring type of program that instead of doing flash cards or just underlining their notes again, they had this experience that was differentiated to them and where they were at in their learning journey, that could be very effective. My concern is that we’re going to instead replace not the studying alone in the dorm with AI, but a student coming to office hours and sitting across from an instructor and having this one-on-one conversation and developing a relationship and, oh, you just happen to also talk about an internship that the student could apply to, or students working together in small groups and giving each other feedback. So if AI is like, on top of all the other stuff we’re doing, like, I think it could be powerful and interesting.

John: Those are really good points. On the other hand, just to bring up one counter argument, we do know that first-generation students and students from historically minoritized groups are less likely to go to office hours and ask questions, and also maybe less likely to ask questions in class because of imposter syndrome or some concern that they don’t want to reveal that they don’t understand something. If they have a Socratic tutor, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, they can ask it anything without fear of embarrassment, which may help them build up more confidence, so that they can then approach the instructor with questions, without being as concerned about not being able to phrase things well or revealing that they don’t understand things.

Sarah: That is a good counter argument. I would still go with the additive one, though, like, okay, let’s make that available to them, but let’s not stop all of the efforts that we do to try to draw them into office hours and into the work, into the relationships in the class, as long as we don’t, then be like, “Oh, it’s fine. I don’t have to do any of that inclusive teaching stuff anymore, because we have this chatbot,” additive, not subtractive, um hmm. [LAUGHTER]

John: And a great reference on some ways of creating a safer environment for students, a more comfortable environment where they feel more comfortable talking to their instructors is this book, I think, Mind Over Monsters is the title. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: I may have heard of that one.

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

Sarah: For the grant, the May meeting. This is definitely for me and my co-PI, Michele Lemons, and a lot of my steering committee and the twig co-leaders. This is going to be an intense four months I guess, now. So that’s the big thing, meeting together. I’m hoping it’s also gonna be really fun. I think that the network’s supposed to be a network, and I want everyone to feel like they belong to this, like community. But so far, you know, the twigs have been working kind of on their own, and the subcommittees of the steering committee. And I’m really looking forward to having everyone working together and playing together a little bit in the evenings, probably. So that’s what’s next for the grant. In terms of what’s next for me, I just signed a new book contract.

Rebecca: That’s exciting.

Sarah: So it’s called Where are all the Happy People? So it’s a psychology book, not a teaching book, and it’s about the fact that no one is happy, and how can we be happier? And so I go to different spots to try to find happy people and then build a model of happiness. So some of those spots are the nunnery. So I interviewed some nuns. Nude beaches is another. The college classroom, actually is one, and I interview Bryan Dewsbury for that. Burning Man is another. So I’m Lithuanian in part and there’s a burgeoning pagan revival there. So I’m hoping to get over to Lithuania with my sib kid who has been learning Lithuanian.

John: A somewhat different sort of research. That sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

Sarah: I’m hoping so. I just wanted to spend the next three years thinking about happiness.

John: Happiness has been a little sparse for academics, especially for the last year.

Rebecca: Well, I hope we find out where all the happy people are, and we can join them.

Sarah: Meet at a nude beach. [LAUGHTER]

John: It is 15 degrees right here today…

Sarah: Yeah. [LAUGHTER] maybe not. [LAUGHTER]

John: …or that’s the projected high later today. It would have to be one of those polar bear ones.

Sarah: Mmm, doesn’t sound safe.

Rebecca: …or happy. [LAUGHTER]

Sarah: No. Safe or happy. Shall be tucked in around a fireplace about now, I think.

John: Well, thank you. This is a wonderful project, and we’re looking forward to seeing those final toolkits. And I’m wondering if maybe there might be some TUnE math and some TUnE chemistry and TUnE economics and other projects in the future coming out of this.

Rebecca: Perhaps we’ll just tune the academy.

John: That would be much better.

Sarah: Oh, thank you both so much.

Rebecca: It’s always a pleasure.

[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 Fred Llerena.

[MUSIC]

430. IDEAS for International Collaboration

In an increasingly globalized and networked economy, it is important to help students develop intercultural competence. In this episode, Josh McKeown and Christina Lee join us to discuss how two institutions are working together on a grant-funded collaborative exchange experience involving STEM students and faculty in the U.S., South Korea, and Taiwan.

Josh is the Associate Provost for International Education and Programs and the Director of the Office of International Education and Programs here at SUNY-Oswego. Christina is the Director of Global Education and International Services at Monroe Community College.

Transcript

John: In an increasingly globalized and networked economy, it is important to help students develop intercultural competence. In this episode, we explore how two institutions are working together on a grant-funded collaborative exchange experience involving STEM students and faculty in the U.S., South Korea, and Taiwan.

[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 Josh McKeown and Christina Lee. Josh is the Associate Provost for International Education and Programs and the Director of the Office of International Education and Programs here at SUNY-Oswego. Christina is the Director of Global Education and International Services at Monroe Community College. Welcome, Christina, and welcome back, Josh.

Josh: Thank you.

Christina: Thank you.

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

Christina: Yes, I always have tea. The tea I’m drinking today is a Korean roasted rice green tea.

Rebecca: Oh, that sounds nice.

Josh: That does sound good.

Rebecca: …having good tea choices today, John. [LAUGHTER]

Josh: I’m having gold blend black tea from Rwanda.

Rebecca: Nice.

John: Very nice. More geographic variety than normal.

Rebecca: Yeah. [LAUGHTER]

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

Rebecca: And I have switched to a Scottish breakfast tea.

Josh: That’s your go to. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: It is, although earlier today, I was drinking a Swiss tea, but I drank it all up. [LAUGHTER]

John: We’ve invited you here today to discuss the grant funded international education projects that you have arranged in South Korea and Taiwan. These projects were both funded by the federal IDEAS grant program. Can you tell us a bit about this program?

Josh: Sure, and definitely thank you, John and Rebecca, for having us on the show. We’re really proud of this project. The IDEAS grant program is funded by the United States Department of State, so it’s a federal program, and it’s been in place for nearly a decade, and its main purpose is to broaden and improve access to international education, particularly education abroad, or also called study abroad, for disciplines, students, and parts of the world that have not had as much study abroad activity over the years, and this one, in particular, the Chips and Science Act, it was a special track, actually a higher funding amount, focused particularly on the Chips and Science Act.

Rebecca: Can you tell us a little bit about the nature of the specific projects that you proposed under this grant application?

Josh: Definitely, and I’ll invite my colleague Christina to comment as well on this part, because in order to qualify for this grant, and they’d been around, like I said, for a while, and I’d always seen it, but this was called a consortium grant, so it required a university and a community college to partner together. So I’ll give my perspective, and then Christina can share from the community college perspective. When the grant was announced, I almost couldn’t believe it, because its focus on Chips and Science Act was something I had been thinking about literally for the previous two years. This part of New York State, those of us here in Rochester or in Oswego know this like the back of our hand now, but for other listeners, the investment by micron technology, one of America’s largest semiconductor manufacturers in a industrial site about 20 miles from Oswego is going to literally transform the economy and probably the larger society of Central New York for decades to come. It’s a project of that scale. They’re talking potentially at its peak of, I think, $100 billion of total investment, up to 50,000 new workers, and, of course, all the economic activity. When this was announced two years ago, I had two initial thoughts. The first was, “Wow, this is going to change things.” I live about 10 minutes from that site. But then the second thing I thought was, “Oh, wow, we’re going to be part of the global semiconductor ecosystem.” And in my work, I thought immediately about particularly Taiwan and South Korea, two countries that SUNY Oswego has really well-established university exchange and other partnership agreements with, but we had not worked with those universities about this topic of semiconductor. So that’s what got me interested in this. And shortly after, I met with Christina, who has a long record of international education within SUNY as well, and she agreed to join me in the project.

Christina: I was really excited when Josh reached out to us to partner on this grant. As a community college, our students don’t often have the opportunity to study abroad, and so building something with SUNY Oswego, who has a very robust and long time sustained study abroad program, was really appealing to me, and also helping us think about partnerships. I think SUNY Oswego has good partnerships in Taiwan and Korea that was also appealing to me. And I’m always thinking about ways to bring global education to our students, whether it’s utilizing virtual internships, virtual exchange, virtual online learning, lecture series, and also grant partnerships for our faculty and to assist with student travel. So I thought this was a really great way to partner with another SUNY school and give opportunities to our students. Rarely will they do a semester abroad, but if we could do a short- term faculty led program out of this grant partnership, I thought that would be important for our students, who often have responsibilities here in Rochester, at home and with work, so I was glad we could do that. Here at MCC we have some unique programs. We’re the only community college with an associate’s degree in precision optics, and we also have a very strong Geospatial Information Systems Technology program. And so I have been really interested in how to incorporate some kind of global exchange with STEM fields in our college. I think it’s important in terms of training technicians in the global industry. I would like an opportunity to find a way so that we can also incorporate understanding of global interdependence on the global economy through, ideally, some kind of exchange that will come out of this program. We’re equipped to do it virtually, which is wonderful. A lot of our classrooms are already Zoom capable. So we do collaborative, online, international learning already. We do some virtual internships. We do some Zoom teaching as well, for students who are interested in our programs but aren’t here in person. But I think this is a great opportunity, again, for us to think about other ways to bring the globe to our college, whether it’s something we do online or whether we do something in person.

Josh: I’ll pick up on what Christina was saying about workforce development. The grant parameters did not tell us, or presumably, the other universities that would have applied for it, they didn’t tell us what they wanted us to do, but we had to somehow satisfy the reviewers’ focus on the Chips and Science Act. But this is where Monroe Community College and SUNY Oswego, I think, were really aligned. And that is, and our President talks about this all the time, that we are going to be one of the institutions in Central New York closest to Micron, but also critical to Micron’s success. But currently this region does not have the workers for that fab. And by the way, I’ll just go take a step back and say I am not a computer scientist. I’m not an engineer. The only thing I knew about chips before this project were Doritos and Lays. [LAUGHTER] When I went to departments to talk about it, I would say it that way, but I’ve learned some things about it, and I’ve learned, including from our summer trip to Korea and our upcoming trip to Taiwan, that the precision that goes into the construction of these fabs, the clean rooms, water treatment, they are really just sites to behold in terms of cleanliness and readiness for work, but they’re also highly technical places, and students need the right experiences, the right education, the right exposure, to get jobs working in these fabs, and so Monroe and SUNY Oswego are really aligned on the need to prepare teachers in the region, to prepare students, and to contribute to Micron’s success. From my lane, though, what excites me about this, and this is where I thought it’s a transformative project for the region, but also whoever that individual student is, who eventually studies abroad in South Korea or Taiwan with us, whether from Monroe, from Oswego, from any other institution, that individual, when they go to work at Micron, I know that they are going to interact with co-workers or supervisors or teammates or vendors and suppliers. Someone in that ecosystem of semiconductor will be from Korea and Taiwan, I know it, because those countries have produced major companies like Samsung, like Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing, TSMC, both of which we have visited or will visit. And I always think about that kid from New York, whether upstate, downstate, that person who is going to go work for Micron or one of the ancillary industries involved in the semiconductor ecosystem, they’re going to have that cultural exposure. They’re going to have that experience. They will have worked, maybe as a research intern in Taiwan or Korea. They will have gone with faculty on a faculty-led experience like Christina was describing, they’re going to have that confidence which study abroad can give you, but particularly that cultural exposure in those two places. So when they enter that team meeting and they’re on a Zoom with people from Taiwan or Korea, they’ll be more prepared. And really, that’s what motivates me.

Rebecca: So you’ve talked a bit about why you chose South Korea or Taiwan as partners or locations, and that SUNY Oswego had some prior relationships to lean on there. Can you talk a little bit about what these partnerships actually will look like? What will students be doing in these countries? You’ve hinted at a couple of ideas, Josh.

Josh: For starters, we had to identify faculty who would be good fits for this. SUNY Oswego has a long tradition of education abroad. International education, really back to our founding, to Sheldon himself, but in the last couple of decades, probably anywhere from 15 to 25 SUNY Oswego professors literally bring students with them on international programs abroad, including yourself, Rebecca, you know exactly what I’m talking about. What we set out to do in both institutions was identified faculty who’d be the right fit. Of course, a lot of faculty, whether it’s in art or music or education, participate in international education. But for this, we really focused on two key areas. One was in the STEM fields. So we have faculty in electrical and computer engineering, computer science, and chemistry from Oswego… Christina has her own STEM faculty involved… but also career and technical education, which is going to be a huge aspect to getting the workforce ready for Micron. By the way, that’s what our grant was called, “Getting Ready for Micron.” So we didn’t tell the faculty what type of programs to be involved in, but the proposals that I got in, and it was a competitive process, many faculty applied to go on these trips, but we selected the ones that were really the best fit. They proposed things like, in the career and technical education area, a boot camp exchange, for example. And this comes from our CTE department Professor Ben Ogle, who proposed his work with teachers and trainers in the region. He does what were essentially boot camps to get them prepared to do teaching and training in this field. And what we found, for example, in Korea and will in Taiwan, they have very similar workforce readiness challenges, very similar issues of schooling and preparation, of demography, of having enough young people to take over jobs and careers as the older generation retires. So that’s one example of how this grant is supposed to work. Yes, it’s going to be a great experience for students. They’re going to learn more about the training and education system in Korea or Taiwan, hopefully good for the Korea and Taiwanese counterparts who come here on a type of exchange to learn how we do it, but ultimately it’s serving the regions and the industries as well. So that’s what I see. But there are probably other examples too I could mention.

Christina: The faculty for this program was a faculty in geospatial information technology systems and biology, so they’re both really interested in sustainability in the semiconductor industry, and I really have enjoyed the interdisciplinary teams that we’re bringing between SUNY Oswego and MCC.

Josh: Rebecca, to amplify your question about the partner universities, both in Korea and Taiwan… everybody is super busy, and everyone has so many projects they’re working on… but when we proposed this, and the two universities in Korea, Kyungpook National University, located in Daegu, and the other was Busan National University located in Busan in the south, both are excellent universities, national universities, and we have productive, ongoing exchange student relationships with them. But when we proposed this, bringing a faculty delegation particularly focused on semiconductor, they jumped at it. There was no lack of understanding. They knew exactly what we were trying to do. And in both cases, in Korea, and I suspect we’ll hear the same in Taiwan when we go there, this fits their agendas as well, because, for example, in Korea, just like here, industry works closely with the universities and the public school sector. Ours is called the Chips and Science act. Well, in Korea, they have something called the K-Chips Act. So the idea of using national policy, a little bit of grant funding, and trying to get universities and school systems focused and aligned on a common experience or curriculum that serves this industry, it’s really global. There aren’t that many countries that do this. In the case of South Korea and Taiwan, these are friendly countries, allied countries. They’re places that Americans love to travel to and are free to engage with. And I’ll repeat, this grant was funded by the U.S. Department of State. So there’s obviously a foreign policy goal to this type of project, and I think we all understand, especially in central New York, more and more all the time, that semiconductors really are part of the economy, yes, but also a national security issue. And they view it the same way over there. So we have a lot to learn from each other.

John: From what I’ve seen, the students who are most likely to participate in international education programs are disproportionately from humanities fields, and it’s much less common for students in STEM fields to participate. Is this one of the reasons, perhaps, for focusing on this to bring more STEM students into international education.

Josh: Absolutely, absolutely. In the case of the universities that we’re working with in Korea and Taiwan, again, these relationships were established already, but we had never imagined this type of engagement with them. So again, the disciplines that our faculty represent, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, chemistry from SUNY-Oswego and Christina, I think you have someone from biology coming on the next trip.

Christina: Yeah.

Josh: Hopefully the faculty return from this motivated and active, and are the ones who can really encourage their students, including, to take a full semester exchange if they want to Korea and Taiwan, perhaps knowing that the curriculum are so well aligned, because that’s one of the projects we’re working on to make sure that our engineering curriculum is aligned with the ones in Taiwan, for example, and likewise, their students can come here, and all of that over the course of many years, I hope, will really create a fluid and really mutually advantageous relationship between SUNY-Oswego, Monroe Community College, and the universities that we’re working with in that part of the world.

Christina: One of the things I’m excited for on this trip that we didn’t have in our trip to Korea is that we will have a representative from Micron, from their Virginia office, join us for the entirety of this trip, and we already have a working partnership with him here at MCC, with our workforce development staff and faculty. So I think it’ll be a great opportunity for us, for SUNY Oswego and for us here at MCC to brainstorm with him, to think about ways that we can partner once we’re back in the States, and perhaps think about ways that we can partner at some of these M icron locations globally, just having his knowledge and information on how he builds programs, I think will be great. I’m looking forward to that.

Josh: Yeah, that’s super exciting. So we didn’t tell them this yet. Christina, but when we were in Korea, besides visiting the two universities, one of our partner universities, Kyungpook National, arranged for a day- long visit to an industrial park near the city of Daegu, and we were allowed in for a tour of Samsung semiconductor facility, as well as seeing one of the clean rooms, one of the clean room demos at the university itself. So being allowed into Samsung, I mean, it was one of those places that… remember Christina, we had to check our phones at the door, like very secure place. This industry is really so high tech and proprietary, but they let us in for a great tour. We learned a lot about Samsung and the development of Samsung semiconductor. Similar, we’re going to do the same with TSMC or Taiwan Semiconductor in Taiwan, and Micron itself, because Micron operates a fab, actually, we learned two fabs, in Taiwan, and so we’re going to be able to see a Micron facility as well. So that industry partnership, both here and abroad, it seems to be crucial to the success not only of the industries, but of the universities that work with them. So I totally agree with what Christina says. It’s going to be really exciting for our faculty and for us to see how we can develop international education programs, not only at partner universities, but partnering with industries in all three countries.

Rebecca: You’re expecting for the student experience to start with faculty- led opportunities, where it might be short term opportunities to go to one of these two countries, explore some things with the guidance of a faculty member first, and hoping that grows into longer exchanges. Is that the model that you’re thinking about? or all the things, at the same time? [LAUGHTER]

Josh: You’re right, I think the faculty led opportunity is the most likely, and I say that for a couple of reasons. Again, we have great relationships with the universities in South Korea and Taiwan, similarly in Japan, and other places, but those places are far away, and most of our students do not have direct experience halfway around the world, in places where English is not spoken and cultures are quite different. Even though they’re safe and they’re wonderful places to go and explore, they’re culturally quite different for many students, and so having the faculty leader with that direct experience who can motivate and excite but also provide the trust and guidance necessary, I have a feeling, yes, that’s going to be the most popular. But if someone wants to go for a semester exchange or year long, they’re welcome to. We’ll have that for them as well. I’m not sure, Christina, if your student population would be similar in that sense.

Christina: The best fit for our students here at MCC is really a short-term faculty led program. 10 days is a good fit for the schedule that our students keep, since most of them work part or full time, they have family responsibilities, and so we have been able to use some of our COIL learning to launch some grants into faculty-led short term programs. Both the faculty chosen for this trip have had opportunities to create faculty-led programs. So I am thinking that that would be what I would like to do with SUNY Oswego in partnership, if we could do that. I think our faculty are excited to lead a trip back to Taiwan and Korea with students. So, I’m looking forward to doing that with a combination of, again, some kind of virtual exchange, some COIL, collaborative online international learning.

Josh: That’s a really good point, because a lot of students at SUNY Oswego as well want to study abroad, or want to travel abroad, but cannot for a variety of reasons, including costs, time to graduation, other responsibilities, like Christina says, and that’s a huge issue. We’re proud of the proportion of students that do study abroad, but it’s still quite small. Probably in our best year, it might be 20% of our population, which is really good, but that’s still 80% who don’t. So those students who cannot take part in that experience, we can develop, whether it’s COIL or something like an exposure to that industry. There’s all sorts of things going on in this field that I was not aware of, things like virtual clean rooms and virtual experiences, or just joint projects focused on semiconductor that our students can work on with students from Korea or Taiwan. But for the students who do go, and that’s one of the big main goals and purposes of the grant. I just think about when that person who graduates and is going for a job interview or filling out an application, and they got the opportunity to travel to Taiwan and actually do a research project or a placement, or maybe we’ll get to the point of an internship at Micron or at a semiconductor fab overseas, that that student will have a competitive edge in the job market. They’ll be more prepared for their career, but we want to be a career- ready institution at SUNY Oswego and I know Monroe is the same, and so we feel that these programs will have direct career benefit for students: more likely to get the job, and then, once they’re in the job, and again, they’re more familiar with the global semiconductor ecosystem. And importantly, they’ll have had some exposure to this part of the world that maybe some of their peers won’t, and that’ll help them in their career.

John: And I would think that there would be some advantages, particularly in STEM fields, for relying to a greater extent, perhaps on virtual exchange or for short-term visits, because most STEM majors have very extensive degree requirements that are already difficult to fit into the curriculum. But by doing things virtually or by having short-term visits, I would think that would make it a little bit more feasible for students in majors with more barriers, because of any of these reasons that you’ve mentioned, or just the number of courses required specifically.

Josh: I think that’s why Christina and I got this grant. I mean, we thought really creatively in the proposal, and to its credit, the grant parameters required community college. I think they were thinking that exact way is, how do we get STEM students? How do we get more career oriented students who also have barriers to study abroad, more involved? Again, they didn’t tell us what to do, but we got creative, and we talked to faculty, and again, each professor who’s going had to put a proposal together of what they could imagine doing in terms of the international experience. And yeah, to your point, John, it really forced all of us to be more creative and more inclusive.

Christina: So here at MCC we have a wonderful workforce development program. And I often do think about how our STEM majors can do some kind of global exchange, because their degree requirements follow a very specific pathway. And there are some that I have been able to find where students can do some semester-long or short-term programs. But our college is unique in that we are often training the workforce in sort of technical careers, and so trying to think about how we do that as a global experience is something that this grant has really helped me think about how we can do that. Most of our students have state and federal funding for school, which requires them to stay within their degree required courses. And so I think we’re trying to think creatively how we can create a capstone that will be part of their program, that could also incorporate some kind of short- term exchange.

Josh: Christina mentioned one of her colleagues from Monroe was in geospatial technology. One of our colleagues in the first delegation was in global international studies. There are a lot of angles that you can take with this topic… site selection. I know that was something that the geographer was particularly interested in, is how a site gets chosen. The footprint that Micron is talking about with its fabs, it’s enormous, so people saw how huge the track of land is that they’re using. And of course, it’s close to the lake and there’re wetland issues involved. So there’s a lot to that from the geographic and the sustainability angle, but also from Global Studies. I’m interested in the topic. How is it that United States and Korea and Taiwan, in this case, are all friendly nations, all allies and strongly aligned with each other. How we interact politically, diplomatically, economically, is of interest to me, especially in such a sensitive technology. And I think we know there are some restrictions on this technology export in certain parts of the world, but also the nexus between education institutions, public education, university, higher education and industry, and how that’s managed, and how governments facilitate that. I think we’ve all seen in New York state how the federal government, state government, local county governments have gotten involved with the Micron project. And sure enough, they have similar approaches on this overseas. So even just understanding how societies are getting ready for investment in technologies like this, all that’s fair game, as well as business and logistics, packaging and shipping these things, and controlling that. So there’s a ton of areas that I think we’re going to be able to explore over the course of the years that we’re involved in getting ready for Micron.

Rebecca: I can imagine that the industry alignment piece of this international project’s a bit different than some of the other projects that you’ve worked on in that it brings industry together, international partners, as well as our institutions. Just from what started to unfold, are there some lessons that you’ve learned that you might share with others that are exploring some similar opportunities?

Josh: That’s a great question. I’ll give my take. We’re still right in the middle of this project, so it’s hard to think fully. But I guess the thing that really has stuck out for me, again, not being an engineer, not being really too familiar with the technology behind it, is how open minded people are about this, at least with the partners we’ve chosen and the types of educational exchanges we’re talking about, all fit with their interests to both the universities that we’re meeting with and the industries. It’s like we’re all open minded about this. And my take on this, I’m not sure what Christina’s is, my take is that we all are in the same ecosystem. And you realize very quickly that something as crucial as semiconductors and other industries, I think, like this too, they all kind of rely on each other, and so working with an educational partner in the United States who has relationships in Korea, Taiwan, that makes sense to our industry clearly, and I sense the same from our partners in Korea and Taiwan as well. It’s like we’re eager to share, we’re eager to learn, and we play a crucial role in that as educators.

Christina: So when we were in Korea, I was really impressed by their national priority to make sure that their students are globally educated. And in several of the colleges that I visited there, they made it known that a requirement was for their students to do some kind of global exchange, whether it was studying in a different country, outside of Korea, and then coming back to inform the Korean industry about the global landscape in technology or in whatever field the student was studying. So of course, I think that’s a priority for our students as well, for MCC and SUNY Oswego, but I also am thinking really deeply right now about the importance of global education as a pathway to diplomacy around higher ed institutions, and how important it is for our students and for us as faculty and staff to continue to develop these global relationships across boundaries, so that global education is a strong skill that our students have. I would also like to say that I was really excited that we got this grant together with SUNY Oswego. I think it’s a great partnership, and I’m very happy to be part of it.

Josh: Yeah, me too. Monroe has been a terrific partner, and their technologies and their facilities for training students and workers are really advanced. They’re incredible. One more thing comes to my mind, Rebecca, about this project, is a lot of us in higher education or education in general, probably don’t interact with industry very much. And when I said about being open minded, I found the industrial partners that we’ve worked with in all the countries we visited so far, I’ve learned something amazing every time I talk to them. And I feel that if we’re going to be the type of institution, and I believe both Monroe Community and SUNY Oswego are, but for others out there who very much want their students to graduate and get good jobs and be able to manage student debt and all the things that we’re concerned about in higher education today, there’s nothing like direct interaction with employers. And I agree with Christina, this could apply in other industries as well. This is just semiconductor, but direct interaction with employers and hearing what they’re looking for, and hearing the kinds of issues that they’re dealing with, and in this case, governments explaining it as well. It’s eye opening. And I think it’s good for us. I think it’s good for me, it’s good for higher education overall, to have that exposure and really to maybe check your assumptions about what a university education is going to lead to for students, because a lot of things are changing, and something as crucial as semiconductor industry, it’s really highlighted to me that these folks can’t wait. They really need the right workers and the right fit and the right skill set. And it’s globally competitive, but also globally one ecosystem that they all interact with. It’s fascinating, and very important too.

Christina: One of the priorities here at MCC around global learning is to understand the impact of global processes on the local economy and vice versa. And so I’m hoping that any programs that we bring to MCC will highlight how connected we are to the world, and we have a very global campus, and also educating the students on the importance of understanding the global workforce is something that I think is important for me to highlight in what we do here.

John: So we’ve talked a bit about the benefit to the institution, the benefits to the region, and so forth. But this is a federally funded grant. What are the benefits to the country of the Chips and Science Act, and what was the motivation behind this act?

Josh: So yeah, we take that responsibility very seriously. It is a federal grant, and it allows two institutions, SUNY-Oswego, Monroe Community College and 10 of our faculty colleagues to have this incredible experience. So it is funded by the American people, and we take that responsibility very seriously. For me, I think it’s partly about global competition, making sure that the United States is competitive, remains competitive, in a crucial industry like semiconductors. I think it’s also the federal government, kind of putting its money where its mouth is, to say that we have the best universities in the world. We have the best technical talent, the most innovative creators and founders in the world, and many of them come to the United States from outside and start businesses here. But at the same time, we can’t rest on our laurels, and that there’s a huge sector of society, regional public universities like SUNY- Oswego, community colleges like Monroe, who maybe don’t have that level of research, because that’s not our focus. But yet, we have incredible faculty, incredible facilities, and our students are ambitious, they’re bright, they’re hard working, and they have a place in this global semiconductor industry as well, and it’s our responsibility to get them ready for it. So to me, that’s what it says.

Christina: One of the things that I have been thinking about as some federal grants have ceased, is how important it is for our students, who are often employed regionally. And I think it’s similar at SUNY-Oswego that students are employed regionally after their education about providing more opportunities to students through any grant agency so that they can have a better understanding of the world, the globe, how their work here is impacted by things happening around the world, and the interdependence of our community, our industries, our workforce. And I’m also like, I’ll say before, the diplomacy aspect is really important to me in terms of creating partnerships around the world. And also, I know this is an interest of Josh’s as well, but that intercultural understanding when we are working in partnership, whether it’s in a collaborative base in the classroom, or if we’re working across industries. I think that intercultural knowledge, that understanding with intercultural communication, all of that, is really important in the work we do around global education, and really important that these grant opportunities that we get help support that sort of worldview.

Josh: Yeah, preparation… definitely agree.

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

Josh: Oh, I know, this is my third time on the show, and I always think to myself that next time, I’m going to prepare and have a better answer. [LAUGHTER] But no, I love the spontaneity of it. Two things are, for me, what’s next, and by the way, I would like to say that I’ve worked in international higher education for over 30 years now. I think this is the highlight of my career, this project, because it ties in so many things that are important to me, the intercultural development that Christina spoke about, crossing borders in general, and how challenging that can be for students and for institutions to do it safely and productively, but also the importance of it, the importance of the project overall, for the reasons we’ve spoken about. So I think about two things about what’s next, developing really innovative and strong education abroad experiences that result from this. We talked a little bit about faculty-led short-term programs, and a little bit about COIL exchange, but I’ll view this as being truly successful and transformational when SUNY-Oswego students are doing internships in Taiwanese semiconductor companies, and we are hosting visiting faculty from Korea and Taiwan on our campuses, and they’re teaching seminars and courses on this topic. What I’m trying to say is when the level of relationship is that deep and that fundamental in this industry, but in the meantime, we got to build one step at a time. The other thing I’m thinking about is, where else we do this? The countries we chose for this grant are ones that SUNY Oswego had good partnerships with, but there are other places in the world too that are crucial in this industry. Japan is a leader in this. There are companies in the Netherlands and Germany that are very strong. All of these places, we have partnerships. So it’s possible that we can even expand this further.

Christina: So I think the what’s next for me is that I’m always thinking about ways for our community college to partner with other institutions, and also thinking about how our students can have a global perspective, a world view in anything they’re doing here, whether they are working in the semiconductor industry, in nursing, as a GIS technology systems student, sustainability. I think all of those things are important for me to think about. How our students, even if they remain local, if they remain in our region, that they will enhance what they’re doing with a world perspective. So I’m excited to bring an opportunity to the students with these partnerships that we create with SUNY-Oswego and in Taiwan and Korea, and really excited to bring that perspective here to MCC.

Josh: And Christina, we’ve been so focused on our international outlook on this project. I think Monroe Community College and SUNY-Oswego are going to work a lot more closely together in this field. I don’t think we quite know, and that’s not necessarily our responsibility to do that, you and me, but I see our two institutions really gelling well with this project, and as the workforce needs of the region continue to grow and get more sophisticated, I think this project will help even beyond our offices.

Christina: I think that’s true. I’m really looking forward to that

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for joining us today and sharing some insights into your project.

Josh: Thank you for having us, and I appreciate this program. I’m a regular listener, and I always learn something. I hope we shared something of value today, too.

Christina: Thank you so much for having us on this podcast, and thank you to SUNY-Oswego for this partnership.

John: Well, thank you. This is a wonderful program, and it’s one that perhaps many other institutions should consider participating in.

Josh: 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]

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]

378. Cure for Engagement

Authentic learning experiences help to create intrinsic motivation for students. In this episode, Julia Koeppe, Bonnie Hall, Paul Craig, and Rebecca Roberts join us to discuss BASIL, a course-based undergraduate research experience in Chemistry that has been implemented in many institutions.

Julia is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Chemistry Department here at SUNY-Oswego. Bonnie is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Chemistry & Physics Department at Grand View University. Paul is a Professor in the School of Chemistry and Material Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Rebecca is a Professor in the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Program in the Department of Biology at Ursinus College.

Transcript

John:Authentic learning experiences help to create intrinsic motivation for students. In this episode, we discuss a course-based undergraduate research experience in Chemistry that has been implemented in many institutions.

[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 Julia Koeppe, Bonnie Hall, Paul Craig, and Rebecca Roberts. Julia is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Chemistry Department here at SUNY-Oswego. Bonnie is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Chemistry & Physics Department at Grand View University. Paul is a Professor in the School of Chemistry and Material Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Rebecca is a Professor in the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Program in the Department of Biology at Ursinus College. Welcome Julia, Bonnie, Paul, and Rebecca.

John: Today’s teas are:… Julia, what tea are you drinking today?

Julia: I have a wild raspberry hibiscus tea.

John: Very nice. Bonnie?

Bonnie: I have an iced tea because it is quite warm at our location today.

John: And where is your location today?

Bonnie: We are currently in San Juan, Puerto Rico, doing some workshops to support universities here in Puerto Rico.

John: Excellent. And Paul?

Paul: I like Irish Breakfast tea.

Rebecca: That’s a favorite of mine, too.

John: And Rebecca?

Rebecca R.: Like Bonnie, I’m doing the sweetened iced tea because it is warm here in San Juan. And the other Rebecca?

Rebecca: John, I have a new tea that I got this holiday season. It’s called Blue Lady. It’s a flavored black tea, and it’s very tasty.

John: Very good.

Rebecca: Maybe I’ll share with you next time I see you.

John: Usually that only happens when you don’t like the tea.

Rebecca: I know, [LAUGHTER] I know. Usually I give them the stuff I don’t like. [LAUGHTER]

John: And I’m drinking some of the last of the Christmas tea left over from our celebrations several weeks back. It’s not quite as warm here in Oswego right now. I think it’s about 15 degrees, 20 degrees, something like that.

Rebecca: Not if you figure in the wind chill. John, really…

John: Yeah, it’s cool.

Rebecca: Well, we wish we were in Puerto Rico with you, but we’re not. So we’ve invited you here today, virtually, [LAUGHTER] to discuss the biochemistry authentic scientific inquiry laboratory community. Can you give us an overview of this project?

Paul: Sure, the BASIL project is a CURE. CURE stands for course-based undergraduate research experience. And what that means is that we teach a course, a laboratory course, but instead of being a traditional cookbook lab where the instructor knows exactly what’s happening, the students are given directions, and they follow directions and complete their assignments, in a CURE, students actually engage in research. Neither the students nor the instructors know the answer to the question, and so this is open-ended basic research, where discovery actually happens in the course. Our course is focused on predicting protein function. We begin with computational methods, computational tools, these are all web based resources that our students use, and then once they have a prediction, they go in the wet lab, they express and purify the protein, and then they run some assays to see if their prediction is correct. And our overwhelming goal in this process is that we want to transform our students from thinking of themselves as students to thinking of themselves as scientists.

John: So if someone were to visit one of your classrooms, what would it look like? What would be taking place? What would students be doing? What would you be doing?

Rebecca R.: This is Rebecca. It would basically look like a research lab, but going on with a lot of people in the room doing their experiments, and they might be doing different things at different times. So it’s quite an exciting place to be. We have designed BASIL with a flexible structure. So it’s modular, it’s adaptable, and faculty can choose to take as much or as little as they’d like. So we have some faculty that might do only the computational modules with our students, and others might do all of it, or some might choose one module and do it more as a one time in the lab, let’s introduce you to a computational tool. And because of that, it’s been really nice to see how different faculty have chosen to run BASIL at their institutions, depending on their own learning outcomes and student population and the resources that they have at their disposal. We’ve mostly designed it to be at the undergraduate level, but it’s been used at the master’s level. Julia uses it at Oswego in one of her master’s level computational chemistry courses. And we’ve even had some high school faculty take it on for their advanced students at the high school level. The great thing about this flexible structure is it’s what we started with, and it’s what we’ve really maintained a passion for, so that people can use it how they want to use it, and it’s accessible, so it’s open access; all of the computational modules are free web based modules to, again, improve student accessibility and flexibility for the instructors.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about how this differs from traditional instructional approaches in biochemistry?

Julia: So in a traditional biochemistry lab, you might do what’s called, often, a cookbook experiment, where we give you some specific instructions to follow, to learn a particular technique with and then to achieve a known outcome. And in our approach, again, we’re looking at doing some more authentic inquiry and research-based experiments. And so one of the things that is very different from some of the traditional biochemistry lab is the inclusion of the computational tools that we use, and these tools help us to study protein structures in order to predict a function, and then students can use more traditional wet lab techniques in biochemistry to then create their protein sample and do some analysis of that protein to confirm the function. And so there’s a lot more research going on, as far as the instructor doesn’t know the outcome, the student doesn’t know the outcome. The students are really having to come up with a hypothesis based on their initial computational analysis and then design the experiments to test that hypothesis, and when I say they have to do that, it’s because the instructor also doesn’t know what we’re looking for, except that you have the same data the students have already collected computationally. And one of the reasons that I do this in the biochemistry lab is because I like the idea that the students are driving the project, and I also see the students are engaged with the project because they have connections. So they’re learning the different biochemistry lab techniques because they need to use them to solve a problem, rather than just learning techniques, because techniques are important. And I’ll throw it over to Bonnie and Rebecca to talk some about why they’re using the project as well.

Bonnie: So I chose to adopt BASIL because we have a pretty diverse group of students on our campus. We have traditional students coming in at 18. We have a lot of retired military that come in, so veterans, international students, immigrants, and they really go into a wide variety of career options after: some go into industry, some go into sales, some go to graduate programs. And the one thing that we know that every employer, graduate program, whatever it’s going to be, wants them to be able to do, is to learn how to get stuck, which happens in real research, and how to figure out how to get unstuck, how to move forward when you run into a barrier. How do you problem solve and how do you motivate yourself to get through that? And so that’s an experience we really want every student in our program to have.

Rebecca R.: And at Ursinus, I was really interested in the idea of interdisciplinary learning. And again, that’s a tool that students need to be able to have the ability to talk to others in a different field when they’re out of school. And so at Ursinus we leverage the flexible nature of BASIL in that I teach a course in structural biology, and we do all the computational work, the students there, and they then go to the students enrolled in biochemistry and tell them about what they’ve learned, what their hypothesis is, and then the biochemistry students kind of roll with it from there, and they have to talk to each other, and that’s engineered into the syllabus. And they end their semester with a joint poster presentation to the entire campus community during our celebration of student achievement day. And it really forces them to learn from each other and talk to each other, and that is a model that I’ve used to try to engage students in this idea of interdisciplinary conversations across disciplines.

Rebecca: I imagine that the prep for faculty is a little bit different in a course like this than maybe a traditional bio chem class. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Julia: Yeah. And so as far as the computational analysis, that is going to be something that many instructors are not familiar with. And so one of the things that we have done as the developers of the curriculum is try to make these things accessible to the instructors as well as to the students. So one of the reasons we’re here in Puerto Rico right now is that we regularly run workshops to help train instructors how to take on this project and to help them to design their curriculum, to use our modules. And then we also regularly run instructor support workshops, where we will go through how the computational modules work and what you can learn from them, and the kind of data you get, how to analyze those data. As far as the wet lab goes, many of the wet lab experiments, students do follow more traditional labs. It’s just that the focus for each one is a little bit different. Rather than give students a mixture of proteins and ask them to separate that mixture, just to teach them a separation technique, the students have a mixture of proteins because they express a sample using E. coli, and now they need to separate that mixture to isolate their protein of interest, the same as you would do in a research lab. And so many of the wet lab techniques are the same as we would see in a traditional biochemistry lab. And so planning for that is very similar to what you would do for the traditional lab. It’s just your starting material might change from semester to semester, and then the end point for how you test your predictions can change from semester to semester, so that can require the instructor to do a little extra work ahead of the semester, to pick the targets, so that you know what you might need to test, and be able to order your supplies ahead of time, so that you’re not running into difficulties mid semester: I need this thing because these students predicted this function, but the wait time from the company is going to be six weeks, and then graduation will have already happened. So there is some prep time that you have to do ahead. And then there’s also some training. We provide support for that.

Bonnie: For my course, I have my students do a lot of the prep work. When they graduate, if they go into a work or industry environment or an academic environment, there’s going to be the expectation that they can run experiments without a prep person making all their solutions and finding all the reagents. So mine get protocols that look like they do when they come out of the literature. This is what you need to make. How do you take what you took from literature and translate that into steps that you take in the lab? So in fact, we don’t do a lot of prep in advance for my course. I need to know what they’re doing so I can guide them in the right direction, but they’re doing the actual prep work, because that’s experience that’s really valuable for them after they graduate.

John: You’ve all addressed this to some extent, but could you talk a little bit more about the student reaction to this type of instruction? Because it seems like this is providing a really authentic learning experience, which is different from the type of cookbook type approach that was mentioned earlier. And I would think that would make students much more excited, much more curious about the outcomes and so forth, than just doing something that everyone else has done in the past.

Rebecca R.: Students do get excited and when the beginning of the semester starts and I’m explaining what we’ll be doing for the semester, you can see some of the students’ eyes just light up at the thought of doing some real research. One of the powers of course-based undergraduate research experience in general is that you can engage more students in the research better than in the one-on-one mentoring model. And the data in the literature shows that experiences with CUREs do improve the student’s identity as a scientist. They feel more project ownership. They begin to appreciate the reasons behind why they’re doing a certain method. And so that is all really exciting for the students. What was mentioned earlier is this idea of failing, and that happens a lot, and that could be really scary for an instructor who’s taking on a CURE for the first time, because you do lose a little bit of the power and control, because you don’t really know what might happen that day in the lab. And I’ve really embraced that idea of having the students do research, take the risk, experience the failure that was mentioned before, and pushing through it, not taking it personally, learning how to troubleshoot, learning how to celebrate the little things in research that actually do go well and not to get so frustrated by failure. So I like doing a CURE in my courses, because it allows for a safe space, a slightly more controlled space, for students to engage with failure and get the experience of overcoming that.

Julia: Yeah, and I can add that there are students who get very excited that I don’t know what the answer is, so I cannot gauge their ability to do this based on whether they got the correct answer. However, there are also students that are very frustrated by the fact that we don’t know what the answer is, so I cannot tell you if you are correct. And so you see both sides of that, but there’s some students that are very happy to hear: “I don’t know.” I can’t grade them on whether they are correct or not. I can grade them on what they learned, and I really emphasize that as well. I’m gonna see that you can tell me something that you learned and show me that you have some understanding of what you’re doing, but even I don’t know if you’ve got the right answer.

Rebecca: Can you talk a bit about how this project got started? I mean, there’s four of you. You’re together, you’re in Puerto Rico, and you’re doing a lot of work together. How did this all get started in the first place?

Paul: Well, I’m a computational biochemist, and if I never go into another wet lab again or touch a test tube or make up a buffer or grow E coli again, I’ll be perfectly happy when that will be fulfilled. If I’ll never run another gel, I’ll be very happy. And so I had students working with me, and they designed some stuff. And the software they designed, you could feed it protein structure and would give you information back about what that protein probably did. So we developed this original software, and that was fun. But what I found as they developed the software is they would predict the function. Well, they wanted to go in the wet lab and find out what it was. So they started doing that. And then what we found… this is in my research lab, and I was sharing this with a couple other professors… and what we found was that they started acting like scientists. They started looking in the literature to find a better assay to use, they started walking up to me and saying, “You know, Dr. Craig, we think that’s not a good idea. We should do it this way instead.” They came up with alternative proposals. So we talk about experimental design as scientists and part of that is making something that’s going to be statistically robust, but part of the experimental design is choosing the tools. And they started choosing the tools. One of my students actually called up the Head of Research at Argonne National Lab and talked to him for an hour about our project, and never even asked my permission. And that was fantastic. So they’re collaborating with each other. They’re going to people in other departments and saying, “We tried to do this, it didn’t work. Can you help?” As I said, I’m a computational biochemist, if something wasn’t working in the lab, I wasn’t the guy to ask. They asked the other faculty in chemistry and biology and biomedical sciences. And so we saw that, we started to incorporate additional tools. About the time this project really started working well in our research lab, we had funding from the National Institute of Health, and they decided to go a different direction. And so our funding dried up, but our program officer was very supportive at NIH, and she recommended we contact NSF and go through their program. They have a program called Improving Undergraduate STEM Education. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. So we approach them, and at the same time, our first round of money was unsuccessful, but I presented a poster at a conference, and at that conference, I met Rebecca, and I also met Mike Pikaart, who’s another member of the team, a couple other folks who had joined the BASIL project at that point, and we’ve had new people join us since then. And so Rebecca went back to Ursinus all excited, and presented it to Julia, who was at Ursinus at the time, and Julia signed up. Rebecca was attending a conference hosted by another organization that they’re all affiliated with, called BioMolViz, which is focused on molecular visualization of biological molecules. And that’s where she met Bonnie. And so Bonnie joined the team, and she was, as far as I could tell, it was like the day she joined the team, she’d been there all along. It was a very smooth fit. One of our other team members was doing some stuff very much like what we do, and one of his colleagues at the University of Richmond said, “You know, there’s some people doing this called BASIL. You should contact them.” And so now he’s part of our team. And so we have other people that attend our presentations at conferences, and they join the team. And so there have been ongoing themes. We want to have continuing use computational tools and building for the future, I think. We also want to have authentic science, they really do get into the wet lab and do stuff. We want to share what we’re doing at conferences. We want to write papers about it, and we want to act like scientists. We want to model that behavior for our students.

Julia: So I’ll just add that Paul gave a very good introduction to how we got started, and we’ve been working together on this for 10 years now. So we started in 2015, so this is a very timely podcast, in that we are in our 10th anniversary.

Rebecca R.: Yay, BASIL.

John: So, how many faculty are involved in the project overall? You’ve mentioned a few people in addition to those of you on the podcast.

Bonnie: So we have a core team, and that varies between about 8 and 10 instructors. So there were the original folks who were involved with the project. People retire. They find other projects they’re even more passionate about, new people come into BASIL, but that core team sits at about 8 to 10 people, and there’s a variety of roles. As the number of users of the material has grown, we’ve had to be more organized about how we keep ourselves, as the community, organized. So we are all members of the steering committee, so we’re responsible for high-level things, thinking about funding, thinking about how the different subcommittees work together, about how to let folks know we exist. We also have an instructor recruitment onboarding committee, so they help show new users what our curriculum looks like and support them as they start to adopt that curriculum, or think about how they can adopt it on their campus. We also have an instructor support committee that’s focused less on new folks and more on supporting the folks that are already using BASIL. So as we update modules or find new tools, offering workshops about how to use those and supporting people when they look at things like promotion and tenure: how can faculty use this as part of their natural professional development cycle? We also have an assessment committee that looks at both how do you as an individual instructor assess the work your students are doing in class, but also on a larger scale, how do we assess that this curriculum is achieving educational goals that we want it to achieve. There’s also just some housekeeping. We have a website and data management team. We do collect data. We run a website. So there’s just some logistical support that has to be provided. Another key part is keeping modules updated. So some of that happens organically as we use them in our courses and we say, “Oh, in our instructions, we say, you will see a button to click on the right hand side. It’s no longer a button. Here’s a different workflow.” Sometimes the online tools that we use get a complete redo, and we don’t know when that’s coming. We don’t run those tools. That happened with our SwissDock module, we had great instructions, and then they did an update, and none of our instructions were relevant really anymore. So we had to go in and do a major update on that one so that it would be usable for faculty again. There’s also tools that get retired and new tools that we discover. Probably the last thing that drives those changes in modules are pedagogical demands. Certainly, the pandemic is a good example of how you need to adapt suddenly. And so the computational modules were really great for transitioning to a remote model. But we also had a faculty member develop some Choose Your Own Adventure wet lab substitutes, where the students come into a Google form, they have to choose what they want to use, and if they make the wrong choice, it routes them back and says, “That’s not right. Try again.” And so they couldn’t be in the wet lab at that point, but they were able online to kind of step through that whole lab experience and really get a sense of what it would have been like had they been able to be in person.

Rebecca R.: If I can jump in… And a great thing that happened during that time is, because we are a community, we were sharing data so if one of us had gotten far enough with our students that we had some data, we were sharing that with other BASIL users so that their students could, even if they couldn’t be in the lab anymore to actually collect their own data, they had data to analyze. So that’s how some of the community can help each other out too.

Paul: I think the original question was, how many people are involved? And so we have our core team, but then we have a lot of other people who have attended our workshops, or are using our stuff. Whenever I go to a conference, I search the abstracts in the conference to see if anybody mentions BASIL, and inevitably we find one or two folks who are doing stuff that we’ve never met before, and we talk to them and we offer them our support, and we have a Slack channel for BASIL participants, and we have, what, 200 people there?

Julia: Yeah. So we just checked the numbers yesterday, where over 200 people are connected to us on Slack, and we estimate that we have at least 50 campuses using the curriculum in some form or another. And as Paul said, part of that estimate comes from conferences, the people who reach out to us, the people who are attending any of our workshops. So most of our instructor support workshops are virtual, and we have gotten much better at record keeping to keep track of who is attending, where the people are that are using things. And like I said, we’re in Puerto Rico right now, running a couple workshops. We did a workshop here in San Juan yesterday, and we’ll be traveling to Mayagüez this afternoon and running a workshop tomorrow. We’ve done a number of other in-person workshops, new adopters, the community, and we’ve done even more virtual workshops to recruit new adopters to the community. We also give presentations at conferences, so there are lots of people. There is broad interest. And so I think Paul mentioned that we regularly attend ASBMB meetings, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, but members of our core team have also been invited to speak at American Chemical Society meetings, at biophysical society meetings. Schrodinger is a software developer, and they’ve invited us to speak during their educators’ week. And this is driven by the community often, that people hear about us, they talk about us, and more people come in.

Rebecca: With a project that seems to be scaling up and up and up, I’m sure sustainability and scale and thinking at scale is always at the front of your mind; these things aren’t free. [LAUGHTER] So what’s on your mind related to these issues?

Paul: I do think about costs. So it costs about as much to run BASIL on a campus as it costs to run a traditional biochemistry lab. So the expenses for BASIL are not unusual. The equipment that we use is not unusual. All of our software is free, and it all works through a browser, and so that’s very sustainable. Now, the people are really, really important, and we really like working together. It’s a very cohesive group, good friends. We work together, we socialize, we stay in each other’s houses, whatever, when we’re in town, and that kind of stuff. And so there’s a very positive reaction and relationships that exist here. I think that’s an important part of sustainability. Also talk about making it work on our campuses, and there’s something called the four frames model and thinking about the factors and effective process. And there’s also, what are the barriers to getting people involved and try to identify and overcome those barriers? Our current grant funding is actually focused on those barriers.

Julia: So, as Paul said, our current grant funding is focusing on identifying barriers, and especially barriers that might exist at different institution types. So one of the things we’re doing in our current workshop, is really exploring that with the attendees and the barriers that we identify, of course, are time and expertise, and those seem to be common across all institution types, because this sounds like it could require some different things than a traditional biochemistry lab and so for sustainability and trying to overcome that barrier of time, that’s where our core team has really tried to do a lot of the work to make the curriculum something that you can adopt without having to put in as much of the time to create all the materials that you might have to do if you’re just creating a new curriculum on your own. As for cost, we’ve really tried to keep the cost down as well, so we use web-based computational tools, so that there’s no requirement to purchase software or software licenses. It makes it more accessible to students who have different devices. So you need a device that connects to the internet, but you don’t need to have a laptop with a certain processor speed or capacity to install software. You can work from a tablet or a Chromebook, and we’ve also tried to use the traditional wet lab method, so that the cost of the wet lab is not any more than a traditional biochemistry lab might cost, and we may even be able to have it cost less than a traditional lab, because half of the work is using free computational tools, which means, if you used to purchase materials for 14 weeks worth of experiments, now you’re purchasing materials for maybe seven weeks worth of wet lab experiments.

Rebecca R.: I’d like to talk just a little bit about this idea of CURES as a pedagogy, and part of the excitement that I find being involved in BASIL is introducing this pedagogy to faculty around the country, and whether they’re choosing to use BASIL or not, just opening their eyes to a different way of teaching biochemistry, or whatever it is that they happen to be teaching, and that is really an exciting place for me, personally, to be. I’ve seen the power of it. I’ve seen how scary it can be from an instructor point of view. And I get scared every time I’m about to start my BASIL curriculum, which will start in a week for me, but I know that I have the support, and I know that it’s so important and so effective for these students that spreading the word is really satisfying to me.

Bonnie: I think another issue that comes up in terms of sustainability is that at one point, BASIL was small enough that everybody doing it could hop into a online meeting room together and have sort of a town hall meeting format and just talk about things. Now with over 50 campuses and all the different time zones that are represented, that’s not a supportable model, and so we’ve had to do things like create the Slack channel, where we can have asynchronous communication and figure out ways to offer virtual workshops. And we also now have begun offering something called BASIL week, where it’s a full week of workshops about all of the different kinds of topics that users of the material might be interested in. So some walkthroughs of computational material, some conversations about how to assess student work, conversations about how to leverage the work that you do with BASIL in terms of required professional activities that your institution asks you to do. So really thinking about how to build that community and how to sustain that community as it grows is another part that we focused on.

John: Is this something you’d recommend to other STEM disciplines, because we do know that we lose a lot of students in the STEM pipeline, and maybe this way, we’d get more people intrigued by the process of being a scientist or becoming more engaged with science as a potential career.

Julia: Yes. So we ran a workshop about a year and a half ago at Prairie View A&M University, outside Houston, Texas, and they had encouraged people from across the sciences to attend our workshop. So we had attendees from biology and chemistry, as we expected, but also from physics, math, computer science, the School of Education, and they even had a couple Deans come to our workshop to see what was going on, and that was a very useful space for them, but also for us to see how others might be inspired by what we’ve put together and looking for ways that they could use our curriculum as a model for creating some additional kinds of experiments, some more research-based things in the labs across the disciplines. And the person who was there from education was also very interested to know that this was happening, because there seems to be a disconnect in those who are training in education departments and schools and those who are in STEM departments and divisions. We don’t necessarily talk to each other, so we don’t know that we’re all thinking about student assessment to some extent and student learning and what the outcomes are. And so I think that this is a good way to engage students in science. And I use it in my courses for Chemistry and Biochemistry majors, but also in my courses for non majors.

Rebecca R.:I think additionally, one of the drivers for other STEM disciplines using a CURE is that the research shows that it engages students. Students are retained, they’re excited. It’s increasing the number of students who have a research experience under their belt, especially underrepresented students in that field, and that, in and of itself, is going to increase the pipeline of students moving through to the next level of their careers. Anecdotally, I have students always coming back to tell me that when they were on a job interview or a graduate program interview or a medical school interview, that they talked about their experience with BASIL and that it made a difference, and people were really excited to talk with them about their experiences.

Julia: Yes, and I think we did mention earlier, but I’ll just re-emphasize that the CURE model, the course-based undergraduate research experience model, is a way to engage more students in authentic research experiences. So many of us are familiar, especially in the STEM fields, with the one-on-one research model, where a student approaches me to join my research lab. But there’s a limit to how many individual students I can take into my research lab, due to the space in the lab, my capacity to mentor each one of them and the resources to support their projects. But if we can do some level of research in the courses that we teach, then that really gives every student some amount of research experience. And the studies show that whether it’s a week or a couple weeks, even, you are going to gain some more identity as a scientist and project ownership than in a traditional lab setting or a traditional lab course and a semester-long project can be even better for that science identity and project ownership.

Rebecca R.: It also is a way of reducing the barrier for those students who might not know or be brave enough to approach a faculty member to ask about individual research. If they’re enrolled in your course, they’re doing it, and so it lowers that barrier, and may be attracting and retaining some students who otherwise might drop out of the pipeline of STEM.

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

Bonnie: So part of what we’ll keep doing as we go into the future is to maintain the baseline that we have: keep updating modules, keep looking at new tools, replacing tools that get deprecated. We’ll also focus on maintaining community. We’re also beginning to have collaborations with other active learning communities, so communities that are not the BASIL CURE, but that provide active learning opportunities to embed in your campus curriculum and trying to see how we can all work together to improve biochemistry and STEM education collectively. So to put all our efforts together and pull in one direction together. We’re also especially interested in BASIL in computational tools. So a big breakthrough in biochemistry in the last couple of years is the ability to use computation to fold proteins and determine their structures. So when we started with BASIL, there were about somewhere between a hundred and 150,000 protein structures. That had been solved with the computational tools available now, there are over 700 million folded protein structures, structures that anyone could use to do research. So we’re interested in adapting BASIL to, first of all, work with data sets that are so large now, every year they’ve grown tenfold. So how do we keep up with data sets that are so large, and there’s also a lot of new tools coming out? So how do we keep our curriculum up to date and relevant? But a really great thing about this is that before there were 150,000 proteins, many of which already had assigned function, now, with 700 million protein structures, most of those don’t have a verified function. So there’s an opportunity for anybody who wants to do BASIL to keep as many undergraduates as they have engaged in research for as long as they wish. So it’s a very exciting time for BASIL and for the biochemistry community.

Julia: Yeah, we’re hoping that the outcome of our research on barriers will lead us to be able to aid in overcoming those barriers to CURE adoption and implementation. Are there ways that we can address that? So I think that’s another future goal for us is really looking at not just adoption of BASIL but adoption of CUREs in general. And as Bonnie said, we’re working with some active learning communities, and if we can identify what the barriers are, that’s the first step in being able to overcome those barriers.

Paul: We’ve been using these computational methods and emphasizing them and it’s really about that, which is probably the most of any CURE that’s out there, and we’re hoping to have an impact, at least to help other people who are doing course-based undergraduate research experience with their students, to identify and implement those tools. And based on our experience with getting these tools into our teaching labs, I think we could probably provide helpful insight to any group that wants to introduce computational tools into their teaching lab, even if it’s botany or nutrition, whatever is out there. I think we could do that.

Rebecca: Well, thank you so much for joining us. There’s lots of great information that you’ve shared. I think no matter what discipline one might be in, there’s lots of rich information. Thank you so much.

Julia: Thank you.

Bonnie: You’re welcome.

Rebecca R.: Thank you.

John: Thank you.

Paul: Yeah, thanks a lot. This was great.

[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]

372. Dance and Math

Students in math classes often treat math as a set of rules or procedures to be memorized, and do not see it as a creative and powerful way of modeling reality. In this episode, Manuela Manetta and Lori Teague join us to discuss how they have combined dance with math instruction to help students develop a deeper connection to mathematical concepts while also building human connection with their peers.

Manuela is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Emory University. She is the recipient of a 2023 Emory Williams Distinguished Teaching Award. Lori is a choreographer and Associate Professor of Dance and Movement Studies at Emory University. They are co-developers of the initiative Mathematics through Movement, and they have taught different types of courses integrating movement into mathematics instruction at Emory.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: Students in math classes often treat math as a set of rules or procedures to be memorized, and do not see it as a creative and powerful way of modeling reality. In this episode, we examine how combining dance with math instruction can help students develop a deeper connection to mathematical concepts while also building human connection among the 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 Manuela Manetta and Lori Teague. Manuela is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Emory University. She is the recipient of a 2023 Emory Williams Distinguished Teaching Award. Lori is a choreographer and Associate Professor of Dance and Movement Studies at Emory University. They are co-developers of the initiative Mathematics through Movement, and they have taught different types of courses integrating movement into mathematics instruction at Emory. Welcome Manuela and Lori.

Lori: Thank you.

Manuela: Thank you for inviting us.

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

Manuela: Yes, I’m drinking a wild sweet orange tea.

Rebecca: Oh, that sounds lovely. How about you, Lori?

Lori: I am drinking an Organic Chocolate Super Berry Burst. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: Wow.

John: That sounds flavorful.

Lori: Yeah, it’s a special day.

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

Rebecca: A nice favorite. I also have a favorite John. I have an English breakfast tea today.

John: Very good. So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your mathematics through movement initiative. Can you tell us how this collaboration came about?

Manuela: During a review session for a final exam, my students were struggling with understanding the geometric properties of a system of differential equations. They were just staring at the graph on the board trying to make sense of it, but they were completely lost. So I tried something unusual. I stepped back from the board, I paused, and then I walked towards it, saying, hey, look, I’m walking along the curve. I have past time beyond my back, the future in front of me, and as time goes on, I get closer and closer to a straight path. So as I approached the board, I saw that something clicked in them. They could finally see it. And so it was amazing to watch the transformation in their faces. And most of them nailed this topic on the final exam. So then something else happened during office hours. I got an email from the college with this chance to teach a sidecar course. So a sidecar course is an interdisciplinary class that is taught by faculty from different departments when they can find a unique connection between their subjects for a single semester. Since I’ve always loved to dance, I thought, what if I could bring math and dance together? And right then, there was a student with me, and I shared this dream with her, and she said, “Oh, you know what? I’m in a dance class right now, so I just know the right professor for you.” And soon after, I invited Lori over to the math department. I showed her some of my course graphs that represent the solutions of differential equations. She looked at those shapes and curves, and something just clicked for her. She saw the connections with dance language. So we decided to make it happen. And we brought students in my differential equations class and our move improvisation class to work together in a sidecar course.

Lori: Well, I just remember this same student that we shared walking up to me and saying, “Hey, my math professor wants to work with you.” And I was like, “Me? Why me?” [LAUGHTER] But again, when I went over to Manuela’s office, I’m definitely kind of a “yes” person. So I’ve been teaching at Emory for so long, I thought, well, let me just see where this is going to go. And we did call the first iteration of what we did, Dancing Dynamical Systems, and it was really triggered by Manuela’s description of what’s called population dynamics, predator and prey systems, and she tried on her computer to explain this to me through the visuals that she typically uses in class. And I just will say that as a choreographer, I’m always in the unknown. We don’t know the outcome. All of our dances are experiments. And so I agreed to do this because I thought this would be exciting to see where it would go. And I think the other thing that is part of this initial piece is people have a lot of fears around dance as well. They think they can’t dance, just like people think they can’t do math. And we’re all movers, but some people don’t identify as movers, and we’ve had a very eclectic group of people take our classes. Some people have studied dance, they’re an athlete, and some people have no real body knowledge at all. And I think we’re helping them articulate the knowledge they hold in their bodies in a cognitive way, via the body, because movement research is founded in the body, sort of a reverse process of what math does.

Rebecca: I love this collaboration so much. [LAUGHTER]

John: Since you began this initial collaboration with the sidecar course, have you explored other classes that blend math and movement together?

Manuela: Yes, we did. So most of the classes were set as directed research classes. So those are kind of research labs where we let the students lead the collaboration among them and basically design their own learning experience, especially when we asked them to come up with projects where, basically we asked them to be the teacher and explain math through movement. Then we participated also in an initiative of the college that’s called LINC, which really means learning through inclusive collaboration, where the goal was to connect, again, two classes in the college with different goals, different experiences, and we decided to connect my partial differential equation class and Lori’s dance literacy class, and we basically had like a different setting, in the sense that we had four meetings total in the semester, and they were based on a theme. So we chose waves, and it was a lot of fun to bring my 40 students in partial differential equations into a dance studio. You can imagine that mathematicians, or like people in applied math, don’t feel like dancers at all, and so we threw them in a dance studio, and it was very fun to observe as the situation unfolded. But at the same time, we basically brought the dancers into our math classroom. You must have seen their faces when they saw all the equations on the board. But then we let them lead an activity in class to basically represent waves even if the students were sitting in their desks. So it was a very fun experiment. Then I let Lori speak about another experience that we had that is a freshman seminar.

Lori: Yeah. And also just want to reinforce that I think that it was very important for them to be in each other’s spaces. We’re recognizing that there’s a prescribed, I guess, type of learning style or approach that one would take in a studio type class, a creative type class, very interactive with the professor and classroom where students are sitting at desks, and so when we went into the math class, they are in desks, and the space doesn’t have a lot of room to move. How do we use the space? So that problem solving was kind of fun, and that project was more choreographic in terms of showing waves as a choreographic little entity. Then we did a freshman seminar, and that class has a prescribed amount of students. It’s usually 12. I think we ended up accepting 19, because the topic was attractive to freshmen. It met one day a week. Well, the other ones met one day a week. Freshman Seminar met twice a week, and it allowed us to test all of these lesson plans that we had started doing again. I think it was really fun for the students. We also recognized we had a mixed level, I guess, of math skills. So people who had high math skills sort of helping someone who had not low, but maybe struggling with some of the concepts, not remembering algebra or calculus concepts from high school. So returning to those things and as always, moving into the body in a way that maybe people who’d never taken any kind of dance class, all of that would have been new to them.

Rebecca: Can you describe some of the ways in which the math and dance are combined in course activities? Can you illuminate what a particular activity might have looked like? You’ve hinted at some of these things are. But it might really help for folks that maybe have never been in a dance classroom, or maybe have never been in a differential equation classroom, [LAUGHTER] to see what some of these things might look like.

Lori: Exactly. I have never been in a differential equation classroom. [LAUGHTER] I still don’t completely understand everything that I’m looking at, and so I’m going to say this is a true collaboration. I need her. I cannot do this class. I don’t understand high math the way that Manuela does, and it’s been a long time since I’ve taken a math class. My approach, or our approach, is that we’re looking for, like, parallels, different correlations, shared imagery, just material that you introduce to the students to invite them to reinvestigate the concept or explore a component of the equation. So it’s not a direct like by moving, they’re going to completely get it. It’s just that by moving, there’s a part of the equation they can understand more fully. One example, we have these physio balls. They use them in movement therapy. We have them in dance classes, and they really are a great way as a prop to understand physics concepts. So on a physio ball, you may be on your back or your belly, and there’s a particular equation that Manuela has aligned with this, but you’re finding different points of balance from your center of gravity shared with that ball’s center of gravity, like if you were lying on your belly, trying to raise your arms and legs and finding that maintaining and finding that balance point. This movement will help you find what is called constant solution of a differential equation, and you’re also kind of recognizing physically what your challenges are in your body, just as you would, what were the challenges in solving the equation. Another way we work a lot… so they have a lot of experiences where their own individual… how they sense something, or how they feel it in their body, is unique to them. And then we do a lot of things where we work in pairs, and those are maybe more choreographic that this trajectory is interacting with this parabola, like the shape of that in space and time. That’s maybe more graph assignments. And then we work in small groups, also to solve problems, and that’s where they discover a little bit more choreography in their own movement choices. When we do vectors and eigenvectors, there’s a prescribed behavior for a vector and an eigenvector of what it can and cannot do, and that’s very similar to choreography in terms of applying restrictions to the body to get a different dynamic behavior and stage that for us is just esthetically pleasing or communicates an idea, and for Manuela, or in math, it’s to solve the problem.

Manuela: So one thing that I want to add to what Lori said that she needs me to kind of come up with the activities, because she doesn’t have, like, a strong math background. I need to say that I need her so much because my training when I was young was in ballet, so I always thought that dance was like a strict set of rules. Same thing that people think about math. There’s a strict set of rules, and, oh, that’s it. You want to do your choreography, you want to execute it as well, and that’s it. But Lori opened my mind to a pretty new world where improvisation… I was so awkward in it at the beginning. I was like, why am I in a dance studio? What am I doing? [LAUGHTER] I don’t know what I have to do here. So it is really like the collaboration, a key point of our work. And even when we are working together in the dance studio, most of the times, we are picking on students’ ideas and we consult and we go ahead and try new things, even if we’ve not planned them. One activity that I want to talk about that is about differential equations is an experiment that we call competition game. We basically propose it all the time because it’s fun for the students, and it represents something that I cover towards the end of the differential equation course, when we introduce the predator-prey model and the competition model. And I noticed that the students have a hard time not really understanding the equations at that point, because they’ve trained a lot from that, but understanding what is the behavior of a solution, what is the biology application attached to it? And connect those points for them is really hard. So basically, what we do is we don’t reveal what we’re going to achieve in the game, but we ask them to select their strongest asset and move according to that. So one fun fact is that during a semester, a student chose hair, and so it was just flipping his head [LAUGHTER] the entire time.

Lori: I think he lost the game. In the end, hair did not work. [LAUGHTER]

Manuela: So what we do is we usually mark a small region on the floor with tape, and this will basically represent the limited resources that these populations have. And as we go on into the game, we try to limit the space making the area smaller and smaller and smaller. And so eventually the students need to leave this area. And so this could basically represent the fact that they lose in the competition.

Lori: Yeah, I do remember there was a student that, kind of remembering her choice, but let’s say that you said, “Oh, I think a real asset of my personality is that I’m adaptable.” And when the space gets smaller and smaller, a person who can change levels, move in those tight spaces. being the most adaptable, often wins honestly. So it’s not the strongest or the tallest. It was this woman that had that quality I remember, who succeeded in our first game.

John: So I imagine one advantage of this is you’re pushing students quite a ways out of their comfort zones, for both students with backgrounds in dance and math. What are the main benefits to students of participating in this combination of activities?

Manuela: So one thing that I’ve noticed, especially after COVID, is a big shift in students’ approach to learning. So more than ever, they tend to focus on memorizing everything, almost word to word, and repeat back exactly what the instructor says. It’s like they’re playing it safe, relying on notes, videos, and any resources that they can get to make sure they’re prepared. But what’s interesting is they’re not as concerned with really digesting or understanding the material, and they’re focused on having the right notes and information just to pass it down. So it’s becoming basically more about reproducing what’s given to them, rather than exploring ideas for themselves. And so when we combine math and dance, the movement based activities force the students to step outside of the typical problem-solving approach they’re used to in math. And so instead of following a set of instructions, as I said before, like they do for a math problem, they have to focus on the concepts themselves and think more creatively. So these activities require them to engage deeply with the material, often in ways that go beyond the usual analytical methods. And then when students are asked to embody mathematical ideas through movement, they’re forced to make those connections and think in new ways and figure things out on their own without the right answer. There’s no right or wrong answer for us, so they actually feel free to speak up, even if they leave their comfort zone. They’re not afraid of asking the math professor that question that can be a dumb question for them. So in that sense, including dance or movement in math can also kind of get them closer to the math instructor and to their peers. One big difficulty that I have in my class is to make them work together. I try every semester to organize group work. It doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work. They don’t talk to each other. They don’t know each other. They have no willingness to make friends in a math classroom. They just want to work on their own. And so, in this setting, we change all of that. They start collaborating. They interact with each other, and even the quieter students who usually hold back in a traditional math classroom, they feel comfortable contributing.

Rebecca: It almost seems like the extreme discomfort that probably all of them are facing [LAUGHTER] is like, “Well, we at least have this in common.” [LAUGHTER]

Manuela: That’s right, and it was even true for me, right? So when we did our sidecar course and I had to move in front of students and in front of the dance professor. That was awkward for me, that was embarrassing for me as well, and I think it helped me a lot in my growth as a human being as well.

Lori: I just want to add that this is not territory that’s hyper familiar to dancers, either. Manuela talked about her own ballet identity, and that’s a prescribed form that is a lot about perfectionism. And then many of our students grow up doing competition dance in studios, and that’s also about being exact and competing and winning. And the kind of dance in our program at Emory is not that at all. And so they’re introduced to improvisation. Dance is a very social form, and so our class sizes are smaller, and we are used to moving, of course, in front of them, because that’s what we do. So I think those two things are different from the get go, but I do see a similarity, that it’s unfamiliar territory for dancers as well, until they get to college, and then dance in college is different from what they’ve grown up doing. So we saw the collaborative nature of class. They were laughing a lot, but they were willing. And we actually asked them that at the beginning. I know this is going to be different, but you just have to have a willingness to experiment, and that’s going to make a big difference. And I think the other thing that I remember… it was between classes, and I said, I think we should really share with them our discomfort and that transparency, I think, helped as well. We talked about when we were in high school, I was shy. I didn’t want to raise my hand and admit that I didn’t understand something. So I hope that helped. We felt like it did, just to say we get it, but you have to ask questions if you are lost.

Manuela: So I have to say that in this. I identify so much… like in Italy, I studied my whole life in Italy, and in Italy you have like this distant relationship with your professor, and so I never raised my hand to ask a question, even in college, I didn’t wanna ask a question in front of everybody to a professor. So I really relate to the students in this sense, even though I try to make my classes engaging and let them share as much as they can with me and be nice or whatever, be friendly, but there’s nothing like as a dance studio to make this happen, rather than a math classroom.

Rebecca: It really sounds like this collaboration and the opportunity for these groups of students around this discomfort has taken down a lot of barriers. You’ve started talking a little bit about how students have responded. I’m sure the response shifted over the course of the semester. Perhaps at first, it maybe was about shock, [LAUGHTER] and probably evolved. You talked about students laughing in the studio and things later on in the semester. Can you talk a little bit about how students responded at the beginning and how you ease them into this space? Because I’m sure you had to do some onboarding, and then how maybe that evolved over the course of the semester?

Manuela: Yeah, so there’s a bit of hesitation at the beginning. So some students were distressed or in discomfort with the movement aspect often and unsure about the space at first, but Lori would take the lead of this in a beautiful way. So one thing that was memorable is that she made us introduce ourselves with pronouncing our names and associating with our names a movement. I usually in my math class introduce everyone the first day of class, and some of them, they’re afraid to speak up, even if they just have to say their names and why they’re there, which is usually because of a requirement for the major. But anyways, that experience of associating a movement with their names was memorable, and everyone had to echo the movement and repeat their names. And I think this is not only like a way to get acquainted with one another, but also to remember the names. Because if you associate a name with a movement, you most likely remember the name.

Lori: I do, because when you have three classes, I’ve got to learn about 60 something names every semester. And there’s a lot of different ways that we learn. And I will see someone on campus, and I will remember their movement, sometimes easier than I can, sometimes, their name. And then it takes several weeks, and I can integrate both things. But again, in a beginning level class, Modern I, which is where this shared student we had was, we all do, we just call it the name game, and it’s very effective. It kind of breaks the ice. And I will say, in terms of the progression that we feel over a semester, we repeat things, warm ups, they’re not prescribed, but we continue to repeat some of the same material of body awareness techniques that are somatic, that they get more and more comfortable with. I’m not correcting anyone, it’s just an experience to be in the body and be present to learn, and then when we get into improvs, and that is a course that I totally love teaching at Emory, and I’m in my silly self, I think, when I teach improv, it’s about the potential of anything to go in any direction, and it is about breaking rules sometimes. And once you charge an environment or a room with that kind of energy, it’s just different than having to get to a concrete outcome. It’s very explorative, and the freedom, I think, is what you feel more than anything,

Manuela: To speak more about the students’ response about the course, I think that we had such a positive feedback. Some of them at the end of the semester said that they like to start with a movement-based activity before introducing the math concepts. And I think this is what the students like, and I do also. I always ask Lori, let’s start with a movement hook, because to start with an equation, it’s always hard to get their attention. I do that in my classes already. I don’t want to do that in a dance studio. And some of them have also said that this basically is a new study technique for them, that they’re going to associate movement to what they’re learning, and then I guess what they see the most is the visualization of the mathematical concept. So we think about embodying it and experiencing it in the body, but I think that, for them, it’s more about really seeing, not only in themselves, but seeing in the other students as well. And one thing that I’d like to add on this is that we had also two students, Luoran and Ruishi, working on theses for math and movement, and basically they took the lead of one of the courses in one semester, and one of them studied the pedagogical side of math and movement, and the other one took the assessment part, so she developed questions and surveys and everything to see if this course was beneficial to the students, and they turned this experience into two honors theses for their graduation. And now we’re working together in trying to publish their results in a nice paper, hopefully, [LAUGHTER] that we get out soon.

Rebecca: That’s great.

John: That’s a great experience for students.

Lori: It was and it was inspiring to me that they wanted to do an honors project in it, because that means that this really resonated in them. They both graduated with highest honors, I will say as well. We weren’t collecting empirical data at all. We were just allowing this thing to be free for many years. And one of the things that we did, though, is we have the students reflect and so after class, we said, “How do we know what really happens? Is this sinking in? How are we going to know if what we’re doing is working?” And I did go back, because I don’t want to try to paraphrase what I’m remembering, these light bulb moments sometimes for students, we don’t know when they happen. Is why we need them to write it in a reflection journal. But we were doing a class that was physics concepts, really, so like resistance, velocity, momentum, Newton’s laws of motion. And this is something that one student said, “I physically felt the resistance of air molecules as my body moved through the atmosphere. It was eye opening. It provided a tangible connection to these abstract concepts. I descended through the atmosphere. I keenly felt the drag force exerted by the air molecules, this resistance or drag I felt in my arms and my legs.” And so I think again, in science classes, which are so different from classes in the humanities, where people discuss and write a lot, it was also helping these students describe feelings, really, sensations, that they were having in the body when they were exploring these mathematical concepts.

Rebecca: Manuela talked a little bit about how dance maybe lit up some math. [LAUGHTER] Lori, can you talk a little bit about how maybe dance students saw math differently?

Lori: Well, we really don’t have that reverse scenario, because in those first years, we had two dance students, we had four TAs, and two were in math and two were in dance. And these were two people, one was a dance major, the other was a dance minor. They were very interested in doing this, and they were my demonstrators a lot, but typically, I would say most of the time, the people that sign up for this are in math, so the crossover really hasn’t happened, even though, in our field or at Emory people double major. So there’s plenty of people who are biology or chemistry and dance and they take math classes. I think that this will unfold over time, but I would say that we’ve designed this for math students to introduce movement to them, as opposed to the reverse.

Manuela: Still too scary for dancers to get to math.

Lori: Yeah, [LAUGHTER] back to fear. [LAUGHTER] Yes.

Rebecca: Well, it sounds like you’ve conquered fear in one direction…

Lori: Yeah. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: …so it shouldn’t be that hard to conquer it the other way.

Lori: That’s right.

John: It does take a bit of work though to get to the level of differential equations.

Rebecca: That’s true. [LAUGHTER]

Lori: Oh, my goodness, yes.

John: So I can see how connecting mathematical concepts to dance provides students with some additional cognitive hooks, ways of connecting what they’re learning to other experiences, which can make it quite a bit more memorable. Could you imagine this type of approach of embodied learning being applied to other disciplines? For example, if you bring some people in from music, might you have a course called Hamiltonians or something. [LAUGHTER]

Manuela: That’s great. I get it.

Lori: I mean, the short answer is yes, because I think movement relates to everything personally. But I can give you an example that was eye opening for me. So in 2023 there was a conference at Emory, hosted by the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, and it was called Minds and Movement: Prospects for the Study of Embodied Cognition, and Dietrich Stout, the director of that, initiated the whole conference, and he had heard, I think, our article had been written about us in the Emory Report, and he was like, “huh, movement and math, let’s bring them into it.” But it brought together these researchers in different disciplines: psychology, neuro/brain, behavioral biology, anthropology… a lot of anthropologists… who believe that cognition is grounded in the body sensation and movement, but the disembodied models from AI were starting to produce or suggest another outcome or another theory. So, the question, really, that was asked at the conference, the overarching question. was: “has embodied cognition run its course?“ Like, how do we use our bodies in learning, and how could it foster applications in human health, therapeutic practices, all kinds of things. And the conference was fascinating. Everyone had, like, 20 minutes to present, so it was really lectures all day long, or mini-lectures, and I was like, we can’t do what we do in 20 minutes, so they gave us a two-hour workshop. It was at the end of the day, and I thought, “My goodness, they’re not going to come.” [LAUGHTER] I was skeptical. I was like, they’re tired, they’re going to want to go home and eat. But we brought them into a dance studio. They did all come. They were participating, just like our students, and laughing and sweating and interacting very playfully, and it just opened that door again, a huge door, asking questions that stimulated discussions about how movement could be in any of these fields. But one of my takeaways was just this man that looked at deep sea divers and the reflex, the skill building, in the body of free diving, or the embodiment of reflex. Another person, her research was the neuro-mechanics that sculpt differences in our movement. There was another woman, I think she taught at Georgia State. Her paper was called “The Mindful Dynamics in Architectural Design.” So the body is part of everything, and it’s just kind of our awareness or your entry point into that. Mine is dance, but people use movement to research all kinds of disciplines or interact with other disciplines.

John: One thing I’d like to mention is that this reminds me a lot of some of the work that Susan Hrach has done. She was on a past podcast, and she has the book Minding Bodies, we’ll include references to that in the show notes, because much of that discussion relates to this concept of embodied learning, and I think they compliment each other very nicely.

Lori: Yeah, I’d love to look that up. I’d love to connect with her.

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

Manuela: We have been working through research labs and initiatives and things that have been going on in Emory. But finally, we got our course approved from the college, and it’s a lab attached to my differential equations class that is optional for the students, and it’s called “Differential Equations through Movement,” so we’re going to offer this 50-minute lab every week to the students, and every week we’re connecting with the classes that have been taught during the normal sessions of differential equations. And sometimes we’re going to use that lab to kind of reinforce the ideas. Sometimes we’re going to use those labs in order to introduce new topics for the next week. So for instance, we’ve seen that with population dynamics, those games have worked beautifully. So we are gonna use those games to introduce population dynamics before I cover those in a analytical fashion. Since we haven’t done our research in collecting data and our case study, we’re going to do that too. So we are now designing assessment tools so we will have pre- and post-tests, surveys, video interviews, observations in class, and students’ journals and reflections, so that we can compare all students in differential equations with the students that take the lab and see if this is effective or not. And now we have another dream, but I’ll let Loriaura speak for that.

Lori: Well, I think that, even in our initial design, I think of this partnership, how do we share it with other educators, to empower them to find new ways to help students learn, and we both have presented in our own fields at conferences and things like that. As Manuela said, we’re working on a paper that will be shared, and that’s another way that it moves out into the world. But a more imaginative, perhaps creative, way, is that we’re thinking of creating either a film, which would be some type of dance performance and/or a live performance, where you could use technology in terms of the set design or background screen, where someone would be seeing mathematical concepts in some way, maybe abstract or creatively expressed, and to create choreography with professional dancers, not students, that would help share concepts in math, and we’re not sure when that’s going to happen, but we talk about it almost every year, and it’s really about finding the time to do it.

Rebecca: And now you’ve said it out loud on a podcast, so maybe it’ll be real.

Lori: I know. careful. That’s right. [LAUGHTER]

Rebecca: That’s how you turn dreams into reality. [LAUGHTER]

John: Thank you. This has been an interesting conversation, and it’s nice to see people doing some creative things to help students make connections and to learn more deeply.

Rebecca: Yeah, that sounds really fun, and a great class for people to observe.

Lori: Thank you.

Manuela: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

366. Connecting to Core Values

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

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

Show Notes

Transcript

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

John: …and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer…

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

[MUSIC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: That makes sense.

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

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

John: Very good.

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: That’s great.

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: That sounds really exciting.

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

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

John: That would be great. [LAUGHTER]

Bryan: Alright, man, thank you.

John: Thank you.

Rebecca: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

349. Growth Mindset Messaging

First-generation college students, on average, have lower GPAs and higher dropout rates than continuing-generation students. In this episode, Elizabeth Canning, Makita White, and William B. Davis join us to discuss a growth-mindset intervention that has eliminated this equity gap in a large STEM class.

Elizabeth is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Washington State University. Makita is a graduate student at WSU’s Experimental Psychology Program, and William is a Professor of Molecular Biology and the Interim Vice Provost for Academic Excellence and Student Achievement at WSU.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: First-generation college students, on average, have lower GPAs and higher dropout rates than continuing-generation students. In this episode, we discuss a growth-mindset intervention that has eliminated this equity gap in a large STEM class.

[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 Elizabeth Canning, Makita White, and William B. Davis. Elizabeth is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Washington State University. Makita is a graduate student at WSU’s Experimental Psychology Program, and William is a Professor of Molecular Biology and the Interim Vice Provost for Academic Excellence and Student Achievement at WSU. Welcome back, Elizabeth and Makita, and welcome, William.

Bill: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

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

Elizabeth: I am drinking tea. I’ve learned from past podcasts with you that I should bring some tea along. So I’m drinking some sweet and spicy black tea today.

Rebecca: Sweet and Spicy… [LAUGHTER] sounds interesting.

Elizabeth: It has some cinnamon and some orange. It’s very good.

John: Very nice. And Makita?

Makita: I’ve got classic Earl Grey today.

Rebecca: Can’t go wrong with a classic. [LAUGHTER]

John: And Bill?

Bill:I have a Raspberry Zinger herbal tea today.

Rebecca: I’ve moved on to Awake tea… this time of day. [LAUGHTER]

John: We recorded another podcast much, much earlier today. So that’s probably needed a bit more. [LAUGHTER] And so that I won’t be awake all night tonight, as I have been for much of the last couple of nights, I have just a pure peppermint tea.

Rebecca: Probably a better choice for this time of day. [LAUGHTER]

John: And for this time of the year.

Rebecca: So we’ve invited you here today to discuss your March 2024 study: “Growth Mindset Messages from Instructors Improve Academic Performance Among First-Generation College Students,” which is quite a mouthful. [LAUGHTER] But before we discuss the study, can you talk a little bit about the difference in outcomes between first-generation students and continuing-generation college students?

Makita: Sure. So when we say first generation, we usually mean someone who’s the first in their family to attend college. For this study, we specifically defined it as a student for whom neither parent has earned a four-year college degree. And these students typically have to face and overcome a lot of social and cultural barriers in order to be successful in college. And although almost a third of the people who go to college are first-generation, they don’t always seem to do as well as continuing-generation college students. On average, they tend to have a little more difficulty adapting to college, they typically earn lower grades and they have higher dropout rates. They also act a little bit differently, they’re less likely to do things like go to office hours, or communicate with their instructors, whether that’s by email or in person to seek clarification on course materials. And just in general, they tend to be less likely to try to access helpful academic resources when we compare them with continuing-generation college students, which would be students for whom at least one parent has earned a four-year college degree. And on top of all of that, the students are also usually… I mean, they have to be… dealing with having less familial guidance than their peers do when it comes to navigating higher education. So if you’re a continuing-generation student, you have a parent who might tell you something like, “Hey, it’s a good idea to go to office hours,” or “You should be asking questions” or “there’s a financial aid department,” important stuff like that. They also may be dealing with a mismatch between the values and culture that they grew up in, compared with the values and expectations of an American university, which is typically very individualistic and may not be as supportive as what they are used to. And of course, they’re also more likely to be working, living off of campus, and they usually get less financial support from their families. But there are other factors that may exacerbate the difficulties that they’re dealing with. And this study is about one of those.

Bill:And one of the things that, just for context at our local institution to keep in mind, is WSU has a lot of, for lack of a better term, brand loyalty. It was not uncommon for me in my class to have fourth generation Cougars. And if you think about that legacy of your great-grandparents had attended this institution, as had other people, that sort of familial knowledge that gets passed along, is a huge benefit for that population of students as compared to the first-generation students as Makita was talking about.

John: One of the things that you mentioned, Makita, was differences in help-seeking behavior. And one of the studies on that is one that we talked about with you and Elizabeth in an earlier podcast, and we’ll include a link to that in the show notes. Could you describe this current study?

Elizabeth: Yeah, so this study we conducted in 2021, I believe. It was the second semester online, so the pandemic year. I know we’re all sort of crossing out that memory from our minds… [LAUGHTER] …that whole year. As instructors, it was a little tumultuous. But Bill and I got together and we designed this study together in his class. He was teaching at the time the introductory biology class at WSU. And what we decided to do is test out some actionable techniques that instructors can do to communicate a growth mindset to their students. So a lot of the research that my lab does looks at how growth mindset messages impact different students from different backgrounds. And at this time, there was a lot of suggestions about how to implement growth mindset ideas in your class, how to change course material, how to integrate it throughout, but there wasn’t really any experimental evidence of specific strategies that instructors can do. So we decided that we would just test it out in Bill’s class. So what we did in this study is we randomly assigned everybody in the course to one of two conditions: a control condition or a growth-mindset message condition. And after the first two major exams in the course, students received an email from Bill, and in the control condition they received a message that is pretty typical of an instructor after an exam has been conducted in their class. It says things like: “exam grades are posted online, here’s how we calculated them,”
“here’s what it means,” and then “feel free to talk to me in office hours, or ask questions about it.“ In the growth mindset message condition, we included all of that information, but we also included a fairly lengthy paragraph… I’ve gotten comments on… but it’s a big chunk of a paragraph that basically says, in Bill’s words, “Here’s what I believe about student performance and exam performance and improving in the class.” And there we integrated growth mindset theory, we talked about how abilities can be improved, we talked about how academic struggles are normal to experience, and that this struggle is part of the process of learning, that is something that is controllable. That you can put in effort that you can use different strategies to make improvements. And I think we used, Bill, if correct me if I’m wrong, we started with a draft of this email that you had already been doing in your class. And we just sort of infused it a little bit more. So Bill really wrote like the first draft of it, and then we kind of went back and forth a little bit to edit it and infuse it a little bit more with growth mindset. But it’s really written in the voice of the instructor. After we implemented this email after the first exam, we did it again after the second exam, changing the language a little bit. We assessed their performance across the semester. So we looked at their exam grades, we looked at their final course grade, and we found that students who were in the growth mindset condition earned higher grades in the course. And this was predominantly driven by first-generation college students. So first-generation college students performed much better in the course, when they received those growth-mindset messages from the instructor.

Rebecca: Can you talk a little bit about the effects and how significant they were?

Elizabeth: Yeah, so when we look at the group differences in the control condition, what we find that’s very consistent across big STEM courses across the university, that continuing-generation students are getting better grades than first-generation students. So in this course, they’re earning about three-fourths of a letter grade higher than first-generation students. So this is a really, really big gap between the continuing-generation students and the first-generation students. It’s not specific to this one course. So we see this in a lot of different datasets. But what was really remarkable in this study is that that difference in their grades was completely eliminated in the growth-mindset condition. So first-generation college students earned about three-fourths of a letter grade higher in the growth-mindset condition compared to the control condition. So this is a pretty large effect on final course grades. And of course, it’s pretty significant in terms of the curriculum that they’re a part of. Bill, if you want to talk a little bit about the students who took this course and how it plays a role in their career trajectories.

Bill:Yeah, thank you for that. I was looking forward to jumping in a little bit. And this is a little bit about my journey too, in this course. So, at this point, just for context, this was the 16th semester that I had taught this course. Largely I had been either the sole instructor or I was the primary instructor of record for the course. It’s taken by about 450 to 550 students each semester, little bit of differential between fall and spring in size, over 50 different majors, or pre-major students take this class. It’s nominally a freshman majors biology course. But there’s a substantial number of students who are neither biology majors or life science majors. And there’s a sizable number of students who are not freshmen. So, in reality, the highest population of my course normally were sophomores, freshmen were the largest population in that spring semester. And that was pretty typical, because it is oftentimes taken as the second semester of an introductory biology sequence. So yeah, and to be honest, over the years before this study, I had been trying to narrow those opportunity gaps between first-generation and continuing-generation students. I knew they existed. I had done many things with the course experimentally over the years, and never had really closed that gap. This was one of the first times, if ever, I saw that gap completely close in anything that I tried, and I tried tinkering in the lecture in the lab, big changes, small changes, a lot had gone on before this.

John: You mentioned that the class is normally about 450 students. Could you tell us a little bit more about the specific course in which you implemented this? You noted that this was during the pandemic. Was this offered remotely? Was it synchronous? Was it asynchronous? And how many students were there in this particular sample?

Bill:So, the course was taught in a synchronous Zoom manner. So both the lecture and the lab were taught using zoom. I believe, if memory serves, I had the largest Zoom Room on campus that semester. I can’t remember the exact number, I want to say my enrollment that semester was somewhere close to 550, or 600

Makita: The final sample is 417, I believe.
Bill:417. That’s right. That’s how many students, so it must have been around probably 450, at the beginning of the semester, or something like that. Yeah, we had synchronous Zoom every day with students. In fact, I learned pretty quickly how to crash Zoom my first semester I taught remotely. [LAUGHTER] So by then, it was a little bit more of a pro, and at least knew how to keep it running for 50 minutes at a time.

Rebecca: And true badge of honor.

Bill:[LAUGHTER] Well, there are many lumps that we took in the pandemic and learning how to teach and Zoom was one of them. [LAUGHTER]

John: I had 350 students in the fall of 2020, and it was not my most enjoyable teaching experience. What are the factors you controlled for? Because you did control for some other variables to separate out the effect of the growth-mindset messaging?

Elizabeth: Yeah, so we controlled for three things in our analytic models. We controlled for students’ prior college GPA… so this was just their self report… GPA that they’ve had in college. Since this was in the spring semester, all the freshmen had had a semester under their belts at that point, to have an idea of what their college GPA was. We included this just because we were looking at performance. So we wanted to filter out or control for their prior performance, that’s a big predictor of their performance in the class. We also controlled for their self-reported personal mindset beliefs. So we asked the students themselves, what do you believe about the nature of intelligence? Do you think it’s something that can improve? Do you think it’s something that you’re just born with? So we measure their own self-reported mindset beliefs, and we control for that and all of the analyses, because we want to look at the effect of the intervention above and beyond student’s own beliefs about ability. And then the last thing we controlled for was their race or ethnic status. So what they self reported to us on a survey. Here, we controlled for that because there is some overlap between race, ethnicity, and first-generation status. We did look at the different groups separately, we don’t have enough power to really look at race ethnicity as a moderator at the intervention. So we control for it in our analyses to look at the effect of first-gen status above and beyond race and ethnicity,

Rebecca: I can imagine, as an instructor who’s fiddled quite a bit in their class to overcome these equity gaps, that it might have been a little surprising [LAUGHTER] how much of a change happened with such a relatively small intervention.

Bill:It was shocking. It’s funny, because one of the things that Elizabeth has really talked about is how we took materials that I actually already possessed in some ways, and modified them slightly in some cases, and more radically in others, but just that transformation was enough to start to really make an impact. And you could see it happening. And that was amazing to me. I remember when I halved my opportunity gaps in my class with an intervention. And I remember dancing and celebrating, [LAUGHTER] and then this one was just on that scale. This was huge and amazing to me.

John: One of the interesting things in this study is you were looking at the effect in terms of grades on subsequent exams, but you didn’t find much of an effect on the second exam from the first intervention. But when you had two of those messages coming out, that’s where you found the relatively large effect. Why do you think the second message was having more of an effect than just a single message?

Elizabeth: Yeah, so we have a couple of theories. We think that one reason could be that they just need the message more than one time. So they need two doses or more than two doses to sort of really get people’s attention and make them change their behavior. That c ould be one reason. Another reason is that it might be enough to just have one message, but it would take time for behavior to change in order to see a difference in their performance. So it could be that after the first exam, they started engaging with the material differently and then that then sort of snowballed to affect their third exam scores, and then again, their final course performance, but we don’t really know exactly what’s going on. Another reason could be that towards the end of the semester, students get a little antsy, and they start waking up a little bit to, “Oh, I should probably be doing something different if I want to have a grade that looks like this.” So it could be timing, it could be dosage, it could be the effects take longer to materialize in terms of performance changes. One of the interesting things that we found here in this dataset is we did try to look at behavior in the way that we had access to, so we pulled all of their activity on the course website. And this semester, our campus was using Blackboard as the course sites. And we pulled all of the Blackboard data. So we looked at whether students in the growth mindset condition were engaging with Blackboard differently. And we found that they were. Students, on average, who were in the growth-mindset condition engaged with the course material 40 instances more, on average, than students in the control group. This is around a 12% increase in webpage engagement. So after they get this message from the instructor saying that intelligence is something that can grow, abilities can improve over time, and here are some strategies that you might implement to realize those changes, they’re going to the course website, they’re clicking on things, they’re re-reading their notes, they’re looking over the course lectures, they’re engaging more with the resources that are posted there. And then not surprising to any instructor ever, [LAUGHTER] that when students are engaging with the course materials that then lead to greater performance in the class. So we found a mediation effect through their behavior with the course material that was posted online. So this is one example of the behavior change that I was talking about earlier, that when they get this message, it can be inspiring, it can inspire a different type of behavior that can lead to better performance in the course.

Rebecca: Those are really strong click rates generally, [LAUGHTER] especially when we’re often complaining that students don’t read our emails or messages. [LAUGHTER]

Elizabeth: Yes. So, we did look at differences in Blackboard in terms of clicking on course material versus going to the page where all their grades were, like the gradebook. And we didn’t find any differences on their engagement with the gradebook. So it wasn’t that they were just tracking it more or anything like that. But it seems to be the case that they’re actually engaging with the substantive course materials more, on average, in the growth- mindset condition.

Rebecca: It’s just incredible. [LAUGHTER] Can you talk a little bit about… and we’re hinting towards this, obviously… what does this study suggest that faculty and institutions can do to improve outcomes of first-gen students, or maybe even, Bill, what you’ve continued or started to do?

Bill:I think, for me, what I took away from it was being very intentional with my students in communicating what I believe about them. And I mean that in the spirit of the old NPR show, or the segment that they used to do, you know, “This I believe,” where people would have those small snippets. I felt like this intervention was something along those lines where I could be authentic in communicating what I truly believed about their abilities. And I did it in a way that, with some small tweaks, obviously had these much deeper and larger payoffs. And I think that’s one of the real nuggets of wisdom here is that when you want to transform, and have better student outcomes, you want to narrow these opportunity gaps for students from certain backgrounds or experiences when they come in. Oftentimes, you don’t have to throw away what you’re already doing. Oftentimes, you already have nuggets of really important things that you’ve built over time. And all you need to do is to work with somebody who sees things just a little differently and can tweak them with you. And I think that partnership with Elizabeth and Makita was really critical for me. They were able to take things that I already had, and show me a different way to just modify what I was already doing. That messaging would go out to every student after that time point. When you see an effect that size, it almost becomes ethical to in fact, it is ethical, in my opinion that you don’t preclude any student from experiencing it. So that should be the way that everyone should be communicating with their students, in my opinion. And you want to make sure that it’s authentic as well, because I started with a set of materials that I had already written and sort of came from my heart, my own experience, that made the authenticity, I think, real whereas if I would have tried to have said something to students that I really truly didn’t believe about their abilities, I think they would have sniffed that out in a heartbeat. And we probably wouldn’t have seen the effect that we did.

Rebecca: It’s amazing what a little bit of intention can do in the design of something, especially because we often don’t realize how big of an impact a simple communication might have. We almost think of it as like a throw away, or a quick thing you might be doing, but you add a little intention to it, and it starts having a really different impact.

Elizabeth: Yeah, I think you mentioned earlier that students might not read the email, you might think that they’re not going to engage with it. And we also thought that, [LAUGHTER] so we think that in designing this intervention, we were really drawing on a lot of the intervention research that had been done previously. So research on wise interventions, mindset theory, all of that was integrated into the design of the message itself. So we started with Bill’s original emails that he was sending out to students and the messages that he had already curated for his class, and timing it in a time in the class in which students are receptive to that information, I think, is also really key. So we don’t know this empirically. But I would guess that if we were to send that email a couple of weeks before the exam, it would not have the same kind of impact. We send it directly when that performance information was posted online. And that’s when students are questioning themselves. They’re saying, “What does this score mean? Does this mean that I’m not good at this? Does this mean that I can continue? Does this mean that I’m smart or not smart? …and that uncertainty, that is the right time to infuse your message as an instructor to counteract those uncertain messages about ability. So I think the timing really matters. I think authenticity, like Bill said, really matters. Makita and I have been working with other institutions to implement a similar type of intervention with instructors. And before we did that Makita did a bunch of focus groups with the students at these institutions and showed them the messages that we used in Bill’s class, and we ended up changing them quite dramatically. The students gave us feedback like “nobody here would ever say something like that,” or “here’s what you need to say to reach students here in my class,” or “here’s what I will be receptive to.” So students in different contexts are going to respond to different messages. And so you really do want it to fit your own class, how you would speak, how you would talk to your students, the needs of the students in that moment might be different from the class they’re in. So it really is not a copy and paste type of situation where you were gonna copy what we did here and put it in your class. I think you do need to kind of go through the process of generating it for yourself and your own students.

Rebecca: I could imagine there would be an element of needing to evolve it over time, too, as your student population changes, and as you change as a teacher.

Elizabeth: Yeah, absolutely.

John: One of the things that I think is particularly nice about this study is that we see higher DFW rates by first-gen students in STEM classes in particular, and so many students end up leaving STEM fields that they intended to major in in their first couple of years. And that’s where the rate of return to education is the highest. And in general, first-gen students come from lower socioeconomic groups and lower family income groups, and if we do want to see more equity in outcomes, getting more first-gen students into the STEM fields could do a lot to help reduce some of those equity gaps in terms of overall outcomes.

Elizabeth: You mentioned the long term nature of these effects. I think it’s a great question. I think it’s something that we’re currently looking at in a project that we’re doing that’s funded by the National Science Foundation, where we’re looking at how these interventions in an introductory course can change career trajectories, that when you get a B instead of a C in a major introductory course, that’s gonna mean something different to that student, that’s going to set them on a path of following that next course sequence, that next step. So that’s the question that we’re asking and the research that we’re doing now, and hopefully, we’ll have some answers in a few years.

John: Peter Arcidiacono at Duke had done a study on the decision to stay in STEM fields. And he did look at some of these questions in terms of the effects on major choice based on the grades that were received. We can share a link to that study in the show notes. In the IRB proposal, did you include the possibility of following up these students in terms of their outcomes a few years later, in terms of retention rates for the students?

Elizabeth: That’s a great question. I believe in terms of IRB, we had students consent to their academic records. So we should be able to go back and look at transcripts from the students who participated in the class. We could look at course taking, we could look at graduation rates, we could look at major. If these students were freshmen/sophomores in 2021, then we’re probably around the time where they would be finishing up so maybe in the next year we could.

Bill:I was just thinking the same. Now’s the perfect time to go back and take a look, because we’ve had enough time since the intervention to see what’s happened. And actually I was gonna go back to one of your earlier points. You were talking about statistics earlier. Basically, this is really the only way that we’re going to increase the number of STEM students going forward. If first-generation students at WSU are 40% of our population today, that means if we don’t improve their outcomes, then we’re going to continue to see the declines in STEM outcomes and STEM graduates that we are trying so desperately to fight against, and also, we’re not going to have the representation in our STEM graduates of the population of the US that we want to see.

Rebecca: I think in addition to the growth-mindset piece, I’m sure that the authentic nature of the messages also just showed deep care. And that can be really important for first-generation students who need that ally or advocate for them in their college journey. So I can imagine those messages coming from Bill in Bill’s voice that make them feel like “Yeah, you can do this, I care about you,” from that perspective is also really important.

John: And there was a study done by a couple of economists, entitled “My Professor Cares,” where they did follow up students four years later, and they did find a significant effect in retention rates four years later by a similar type of intervention, I don’t think it was quite as much growth-mindset focused, but just sending a signal that the professor cared about the students outcomes, a very simple message, made a significant difference in student’s grades as well as longer term outcomes. So it’s nice to see more studies of this, especially focused on issues such as growth mindset.

Elizabeth: Yeah.

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

Elizabeth: So Makita and I and our lab have been working for the past couple years on following up on these data in different institutions. We used this study as pilot data in a grant application. And now we’re sort of scaling up to other institutions. We have a project with a really large HBCU, a Hispanic-Serving Institution, WSU is continuing to be involved as well, an Asian and Pacific Islander Serving Institution to where we have a number of instructors who vary in different characteristics, different class compositions, and we’re looking at these instructor messages in an experiment in these different contexts to see what matters. Does it help students develop their own growth mindset? Does it change their behavior? Does it work in some contexts, but not others? Do the instructor characteristics matter? So far, in the past two years, we’ve collected data from around 10,000 students who have been involved in this intervention project, and we’re currently in data analysis phase. So stay tuned for future studies and papers that come out of that data set.

John: Makita?

Makita: Well, what’s next for me is Elizabeth and I are actually going to meet right after this to do a debrief and to discuss some of the analyses that I just ran on a study that will be involved in my dissertation.

Rebecca: And how about you, Bill?

Bill:For me, I think about: “How do I proselytize about this work?” Because I think about what little changes make a big difference in an institution. We talk a lot about student retention, we talk a lot about student outcomes, we talk about creating the global citizenry that we want to see emerge from higher education. And the one experience that every student has in common, whether they are a first-generation a continuing-gen, or from some other background, is they have to take classes, and they have to be in classroom environments every day of the week, for the most part, over a course of four years. And I think about what would it look like to have interventions like this, that have evidence that back them, that students get inoculated with repeatedly over multiple time points with different voices, and that faculty engagement in the process of helping our students become better, to find success and to move forward in their careers? To me, that’s the magic of this. I’ve been talking to other people about it and I think about what would a curriculum look like that had small things like this? And how could it transform what we do? And I think that’s a vision that I can buy into, and I hope others are gonna come along for that ride.

Rebecca: I think the scope of the interventions that you’re talking about, that have this kind of impact, are really easy to buy into. Because usually you’re thinking about some drastic, giant investment of time, is what most people are thinking about. And that often is what prevents action from happening. So I’m excited, excited to share this and to hear what comes of your bigger study.

John: And one thing we appreciate is when we see things like this posted on social media so we can hear about it [LAUGHTER] and we can share it out a little bit further. [LAUGHTER] And I hope you’re presenting this at various conferences to reach a larger audience.

Elizabeth: Yeah, we will be presenting some of this work at SABER this summer. So that is the Society for the Advancement of Biology education research, and we’ve presented it in some other psychology conferences throughout the past year as well.

John: Excellent.

Bill:And I gave a plenary talk at the summer educational meeting for the ASBMB, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. So I gave a little preview of what we had found. And that generated a lot of discussion and excitement, actually people asking for additional resources and ideas and things. So I think there’s a receptive audience out there.

Rebecca: That’s wonderful.

John: Well, thank you for joining us. It’s always great talking to you and it’s great to hear about this newest study and to meet you, Bill. We’re looking forward to hearing more about how things go in the future.

Elizabeth: Thank you so much. Thanks for having us.

Rebecca: I hope you’ll reach out when your next study is done. [LAUGHTER]

[MUSIC]

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

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

[MUSIC]

341. Learning Losses

The transition to remote instruction during the COVID19 pandemic resulted in dramatic learning losses. In this episode, Peace Bransberger joins us to discuss a report that analyzes the extent and persistence of these learning losses. She is the Interim Director, Programs and Evidence, Policy Analysis and Research, and Programs and Services at WICHE, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Show Notes

Transcript

John: The transition to remote instruction during the COVID19 pandemic resulted in dramatic learning losses. In this episode, we discuss a report that analyzes the extent and persistence of these learning losses.

[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 Peace Bransberger. She is the Interim Director, Programs and Evidence, Policy Analysis and Research, and Programs and Services at WICHE, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Welcome, Peace.

Peace: Thank you.

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

Peace: I have drank tea and I ended my tea drinking portion of my day with a Trader Joe’s maple espresso tea.

Rebecca: That sounds interesting.

John: I’ve had some of their teas, but I’ve never had that one.

Rebecca: It sounds energizing.

Peace: Yeah, it’s a black tea, has a bit of a smokish coffee kind of impact from the espresso.

Rebecca: Interesting. That’s a new one. I don’t think we’ve had that one yet.

John: No, we haven’t. [LAUGHTER] Well, I have an old one here, a spring cherry green tea in the hopes that we will see spring here. We had a lot of snow in the past week. We’re recording this, we should note, in late March.

Rebecca: I have a Lady Grey today.

John: The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education is focused primarily on post-secondary education, yet you issued a report which is titled “Navigating Learning Loss and Changing Demographics in Education” in February of this year. Could you tell us a little bit about why you had this focus on learning losses in elementary and secondary education?

Peace: Well, so my organization goes by the acronym, WICHE, you had it correct. We’re a Higher Education Commission. And one of the things we’re known for on the research side of things, because we do a whole bunch of other things to support the 15 Western states and then outlying Pacific territories, higher education systems, and one of the types of research that we’re known for our projections of the number of high school graduates. It goes under the long-standing title of “Knocking at the College Door,” and the projection of the number of high school graduates so that state and institutional planners can strategize around overall student flow trends. We last issued the update to that 40 year ongoing research in 2020, when COVID was first raging, and we issue these projections roughly every four to five years. So we’re in a prep year right now. As part of my job, and being the lead on the network, I am always monitoring K-12 trends data. So we’ll have a heads up about whether something would be monumentally different in the space of high school graduation. And as a result of what I was seeing, we decided in February to issue the report, kind of a summary brief, because the data were compounding and resoundingly indicating that yes, something is currently different, and might continue to be different about high schoolers, and younger K-12 populations as a result of COVID. We’ll go into detail on the learning loss side of things, but from the perspective that we really typically focus on,the numbers of high school graduates, the major demographic trends, the reason that we felt we needed get out in front of what we were seeing is because the learning loss, we see from that the potential that enough children and teens may have been so impacted by the learning disruptions and things that a quantitative impact on the actual high school graduation trend is possible. And that’s important to know, because it’s a second layer on something that I think we all kind of have on our minds, some people will call it demographic cliff, we don’t use that term, even though our data are used to depict the slope, the trend line, it’s the coming downturn in the number of high school graduates, because back in 2008, fewer babies started being born. And to this day, there has not been an uptick in the rate of fertility in the United States and across virtually all of the states. We know this, in fact, it could be next year’s high school graduating class that might begin to evidence some of that trend. And so people are front and center thinking about that demographic change, I would suggest, [LAUGHTER] at a minimum is a contraction in the youth population. I don’t know if what that means necessarily for higher education contraction, but we can talk about is learning loss going to do anything to help that? Are we gonna somehow see actually more high school graduates than we might have otherwise expected given C OVID? Or is it more like what I think we’ve probably all been waiting and worrying about, could it impact that trend and deepen it, amplify the downturn in high school graduates?

Rebecca: So you talked a little bit about the data suggesting losses in persistence of learning? Can you talk a little bit about what those losses look like?

Peace: Sure. And, just for our purposes here, I’ll speak to the national kind of overall results and trends. But I would strongly encourage your listeners, even just as a starting point, to go to the web page that I’m sure we’ll put in the show notes where the report resides. And within that page, I’ve been adding to the list where people can access more detailed data than the national trends. I’d go there because then you can poke around, based on your own institution, and get a sense of the kind of school districts that you might know, school districts that are kind of geographic areas that are really strongly important to your student populations. Because the detail is really important. It’s a really multifaceted, nuanced topic. So about the persistence of the learning losses, and this is in the K-12 pipeline. I mean, technically, we work in grades one through 12 data because kindergarten is not a universal requirement, so it can be hard to know what’s going on there, since the trend data could vary year to year. When I mentioned prior to COVID, or pre-COVID, in the K-12 school system, that would typically mean either the 2019-20 school year, or some folks go back as far as 2018-19, because the 2019 school year included the spring that was disrupted, but by then most learning and assessments had already occurred, and then the quote unquote, post-pandemic assessments that we have availability to summarize go through the spring of 2023. So that’s almost a year ago at this point. But by spring of 2023 students started, after a couple of years that we’ll discuss here about what really happened there, students started showing some resumption in the rate of annual learning and acquisition that was typical pre-COVID. So that’s just like, on average, in a given year, the assessments generally will say how close to on-grade-level and then was the amount of typical acquisition achieved. By spring of 2023, the good news was that annual rates, there was some evidence that students were a little bit more closer to back on track. The unfortunate problem, and otherwise not good news, is that students were definitely not on pace during the two previous years. So they lost total learning, and it sort of accumulated. Students would have needed to learn at really unprecedented rates in 2022- 2023, that year, where they are resuming sort of a typical rate, just to make up for two years of lost learning, if that’s even such a thing in learning, which is an accumulative kind of process. There are spring of 2023 results, there are some more recent results from several of the major assessment products for the fall of 2023, so getting into the current school year, beginning of the current school year, and they generally confirm what spring 2023 results showed, that students came into the year with the overall lost learning. At this point, it means that these K-12 students… and we’ll give some statistics by different grade levels and what have you, the nuance, but pretty much from the assessment results, you see the same trend virtually at every grade level, which is that students have been moving along, learning in the given grade that they’re at, but they’re still being bogged down by overall unremedied learning losses. And that’s for four years now, so that’s pretty substantial. One sort of point of reference for those students who were high school freshmen, as COVID was raging, their time is up. So four years, did they get back on pace? Were they able to stay on pace, such as I’ve just described? They’re gonna graduate now, and many of them will graduate, but not having been able to fully recoup what was lost. And so there’s not a lot of data that actually sort of compare, “Okay, so I’ve received my diploma, it was awarded to me. What amount am I behind?” And I think that’s part of the problem. In fact, there is increasing attention to the notion that grade inflation, that has always been something of investigation, but evidence that it may have really been at play during these past four years in a way that is really masking and complicating this issue, not making it clear whether students who are graduating from high school, would they be considered on par with previous cohorts that were emerging even prior to COVID?

John: So basically what’s happening is students seem to be learning at the same pace they were pre-COVID, but they’ve all been left behind fairly substantially as a result of that transition to remote learning. And they haven’t caught up to where they would have been had we not gone to that experience.

Peace: Yeah.

John: Were those losses roughly the same everywhere, or were they particularly bad in lower income communities?

Peace: Well, let me give you first even just a sense of the scale of losses, and some of this, you almost have to see it to comprehend it, but I think I can kind of show the scale. So this is high school, stick with high school students, and so they’re the ones most immediate to our faculty might see. It was reported in October, the high school students’ scores on the ACT College Admissions Test had dropped to their lowest point in more than three decades. And that was describing therefore the class of 2023, some of which are presumably in college right now. And they were in their first year of high school when COVID hit. The average ACT composite score for U.S. students was 19.5 out of 36, for that class of 2023, which was down from the prior year 19.8, which we’re talking already that those were some score levels that might not have been ideal to begin with. For as regards to SAT, total score declined for the class of 2023 as well down to 1028 compared to 1050, for the class of 2022 and compared to 1060 for the class of 2021. So really, those are just a couple of data points about this notion that schools are graduating students but what that means when they’ve graduated could appear very different by the time they arrive to college. Now, it’s hard. Sometimes people might poke holes on those type of data because ACT and SAT are not taken by every single student. So the other thing I’ll point out is that we’re focusing on COVID impacts here. But it’s important to point out that in those two assessment instruments, ACT and SAT, scores had been falling prior to the pandemic. And so the pandemic just accelerated those declines, accelerated and amplified them. Since we work in the demographic space, on demographics research, I’ve been talking to other researchers about possible reasons for that pre-COVID decline trend, and just, frankly, how hard it is to reconcile with graduation rates that had continued to increase over the same years, and then the grade inflation, so we don’t have conclusive answers on that. But it’s worth noting, we’re talking COVID. The question might be for faculty and instructors is, do things feel particularly difficult with incoming freshmen at this point, in some way, shape, or form, and probably in very nuanced ways, depending on discipline. But then it’s also like, are they feeling pretty good, prior to COVID, were they where you want them to be anyway? So assessment results from elementary and middle school grades, the one that provides some of the most normed results, and therefore can be compared over time and as a universal sort of indicator, is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP for short. They’re the thing that really caught my attention. We tried to highlight where the score drops for 13 year olds, they’re no more or less important than any other grade level, or school age. But those are the next in line coming through high school. So we’ve just seen what was going on with the high school age students during that period. Well, the NAEP 50th percentile mathematics score in 2022, was 282. In 2023, it was 274. That was at the 50th percentile, so an eight point decrease at the middle, the decrease on the already relatively higher scores at a 90th percentile was six point decrease. So even the highest percentile, 90th percentile, had a pretty dramatic decrease between those years. And at the 25th percentile, it was a 12-point score drop between 20 and 2023. NAEP reading score declines ranged between three point drops at the 90th percentile to six point drops at the 25th percentile between those years 2020 to 2023. And so there, it gets to the topic that I’ll provide a few more thoughts on about the variability. Were all students affected by this? Which ones more or less so? Right there, that was a statement of a twice as large score drop for those at the 25th percentile, compared to those at the 90th percentile. And this is already on the 90th percentile, they already being, perhaps at or above a proficiency level compared to a 25th percentile, which might not actually be at a proficiency level. And on top of that, you have a steep drop. It’s also worth noting, just like with the SATs, and the ACT scores, that the NAEP scores in that 2023 school year, were just an amplified continuation, some declines that were already emerging pre-COVID, such that in the composite reading score it had by 2023, it was the total average, so at the 50th percentile, seven points lower in 2023 than a decade prior. So over the course of a decade, it was already reducing, and then 14 points in mathematics. So some of these things that we’re talking about is, I don’t know if you want to say learning loss or just what the best word to say it is, because it’s nuanced, but they were approaching prior to the COVID period. And so I really want to highlight that because kind of just in am analogy, prior to the pandemic, schools and students are already losing historical ground. So they were already maybe not in the best shape, so to speak. And now they have to also recover from COVID. And so that can definitely explain some of the lack of recovery and a slow recovery.

John: Going back to the issue of SATs and ACT scores, you mentioned some complications. I’m guessing the major complication is that fewer people are taking the SATs and ACT since at many colleges scores became optional, and the people who are most likely to avoid taking it are those who might on average, expect to do less well on the SATs or ACTs, so that may suggest that the losses would be even greater if we had the same proportion of students taking the SATs and ACT tests as pre-COVID when a larger proportion of schools required them for admissions.

Peace: Yes, that is true. However, the 2023 SAT scores, the participation was the highest ever. So maybe the 2022 that could have been a somewhat more appropriate consideration. It remains the case. We don’t know the underlying distribution of the students necessarily, and if they change year over year in consequential sorts of ways. But I think you’re right. I’m really looking for some good news on this topic. So I can be something other than a Debbie Downer. But the truth is, I don’t think we can look at this and pick away at the data. We went out because it was like if you download the PDF, and you’re not convinced just like access the 30 different year points or different reference tests, and what have you, and see if you’re convinced that this has happened, it really has. It’s pretty affirmative at this point, we’d love to see it turn around, but I don’t think we can just ignore it.

Rebecca: I think it’s really helpful too to point out that it’s not just COVID, the fact that you’ve underscored that, and it might be exacerbated by COVID is really important, because there’s a lot of blaming of COVID on many experiences that we have in the classroom, that may or may not actually be the cause.

Peace: I’d argue they are the cause of what’s seen with the past four years, but we can’t just pretend that that because it was so consequential over those time periods that even a return to normal would be where we want to be.

Rebecca: Oh, of course.

Peace: I think that’s the emphasis, normal wasn’t a good normal. And maybe we didn’t all look at it. It wasn’t so stark, somehow, different people might have been emphasizing it from an equity perspective. I would emphasize it from an economic perspective, because what I won’t highlight here is that there are researchers like Brookings, some of the think tanks, and then in other cases, some more consulting sorts of research organizations that are kind of putting out there, this has implications for the economy. I mean, we can talk about the implications for higher ed, and that part of the economy, but I mean, I just don’t think we can ignore past this, there might have been something brewing, that this was just a perverse sort of way to get our attention on some of it about what the youth of today need? Where do they stand? Are they getting prepared well enough in a way that we need to support the workforce of tomorrow. That’s not the only reason for higher education, but as you and I decide to go take our retirement, these are the kids who will be supporting the country’s economy, and there will be fewer of them. So their ability to do that is really important. So I think, if nothing else, it could be a wake up call. We should really wake up, but we don’t have to wake up screaming and yelling in the house like the fire alarm going off, we need to figure out what to do.

Rebecca: One of the other issues that your report underscored was some high rates of absenteeism. And that’s certainly something I’ve heard my colleagues talk about as well. Can you talk a little bit about some of the potential causes for that?

Peace: Yeah, I will. I also do then want to make a note about something else, but I’ll respond to the absenteeism. So the statistic, 30% of students nationwide were chronically absent in the 2021-2022 school year. So that’s two years into the quote unquote, pandemic period, which is double the pre-COVID19 average. And while not comprehensive, the preponderance of data, were suggesting only minor improvement in the most recent completed school year, 2022 to 2023. That’s huge. Now, chronic absenteeism is different than like average daily attendance and what have you. But still it was a doubling. Absenteeism is the question. I mean, the question is, is it a symptom or is it a cause? And it’s a little bit of both. Prior to COVID students with more day-to-day life or learning challenges were on average, more likely to be absent from school, and a real reason to be absent from school, especially given the kind of hysteria that was almost necessary. As a parent, I got this during COVID. I’m like I was sending my kid to school if they met the temperature well enough for them to go. But being sick is a valid reason for absence. And that was made so much more evident with COVID. And some households and students are just simply more likely to be sick or not recovered as solidly. Now, of course, some of them might already be vulnerable students by virtue of a health condition, but you’ve got students and families that due to their living conditions, or health care access, might be more likely to be absent. One of the phenomenon, if you will, or factors, is social prejudices, and hostile environments for some students more than others. So the Asian and Pacific Islander communities experienced more of that during COVID and that may be lingering in their attendance decisions and the Black Lives movement put in the spotlight the types of stresses that black students might face at school. It can be rational to avoid school, and at this point, some fatigue with that might have set in. So, but even let’s talk about the marginalized students, and is the average student’s disposition to attend school affected by this point in some way, because if it is, then it’s amplified for marginalized students. So school and education that we as adults just talk about and encourage our children to, try to guide them through, pull them through, whatever. They might have become synonymous with very easily influenced young children and their emotional memory with online learning and masking and fear of sneezes and coughs, let alone than what it felt like go back after being socially isolated. And my kid experienced, even in the higher achieving classes, just an unusual rate of disruptions from students transitioning back socially and stuff like that. So these are children. And that can be a far more formative experience. I’m not a psychologist, I can’t say trauma, what have you. But that can be something that that’s all you know, for some of them or a big part of your recent memory. And that can be all you can think of as school, so to ask me to go tomorrow, I might be relying on that recent memory. So I can understand any student in K-12 to some extent, also. Hopefully, as you mature into an adult, you’re able to sort of equip yourself to move past those things. But some of these young adults really having a lot of emotional memory that makes this a real sticky issue, the absenteeism or the lack of kind of bringing their best to the educational setting. I mean, if you want more factors, if that’s not enough, school transportation issues for the past two years and kids literally not having a way to get to school. You’ve got teacher fatigue, and we know how important instructors are in the classroom and what you can bring to it, your ability to do that. And if it couldn’t get worse, because I lived through this with my kid, you still got an unrelenting possibility of like school violence and mass shootings. So there’s a lot of reasons that school does not feel like running through the corridor anything, you know, that maybe we all might have felt as a more positive thing. Now, things hopefully, the last, maybe a year or so where kids are able to start washing some of that out of their memory, and it being replaced with a more normal environment. And hopefully, that’s a good thing for them.

John: One of the things that shows up in the data is while there were learning losses across the board, I believe the learning losses were a bit worse in the area of math. And those seem to be having a pretty significant effect, or at least from what I’ve seen in the classroom, that’s been having quite a bit of an effect on our incoming student body and may have a significant effect on their choice of majors. And we know the rate of return to education in the STEM fields is dramatically higher than it is in other areas. And in terms of the state of the economy, that’s something that could have a very negative impact unless we provide some ways of helping students get caught up in some way. What can colleges and universities do to try to bridge that gap, to take students who, on average are coming in at lower levels, and get them up to the level that they need to be at to be successful?

Peace: As you and I must have been reading some of the most recent coverage on this topic, even just this week. So I can dive into your second question through the lens of STEM. So yes, I had seen some stuff about it more from a HBCU perspective, Jill Barshay of The Hechinger Report, she often does deep data dives. And so earlier this week, she released some interpretations highlighting how the NAEP, those national scores for the K-12 population, those and similar results could conceivably suggest a narrowing of the STEM pipeline for what you’ve mentioned. And so it feels like there are a couple of really interesting points on that… math, at the very least, although clearly, reading comprehension is also very important for sciences and anything, obviously, but those more technical reading types of disciplines. Reading, it cannot be forgotten. So what’s maybe most worth thinking about from what she highlighted was the top students, the NAEP results, you’ve got it 75th percentile 90th percentile, what have you. Top students are staying on grade level, according to those data. And those top students, of course, are maybe definitely the front of the line on the STEM pipeline. But the eighth grade NAEP shows that far fewer of even those who are in the top portion are hitting an advanced performance level or even proficient. So just because you’re in the top, it’s a grading curve, so to speak. Top might not mean what we need for STEM types of disciplines. So, there were learning losses across the board, math scores among the top performers dropped as steeply as did the scores among lower percentile scores. Okay, they call out even the scores of students at Catholic schools. So we understand that that might be a place where some of the STEM students could be concentrated. Otherwise, the scores from those schools would indicate that they weathered the pandemic pretty well. But scores in eighth grade math plummeted. And I just think that that’s another one of these big wake up calls, and it’s in the microenvironment of STEM, but the importance of it to the economy, obviously to the colleges and universities for which that’s a key focus. Now, what might you do even just on this topic, because then I think we can get into a little broader discussion about what to do. I would just ask STEM faculty, if this is the case, if these are the facts, it’s the real fact of the matter. Let’s just free think a little bit and see, to what extent could you meet students at a lower proficiency level if needed. So if it can be quantified, they’re 10% off what you think should be the criteria for even beginning the STEM disciplines, then what have you? If that’s what you have, if that’s going to be sort of the circumstance of even your top applicants, can you do something differently to allow them to actually be admitted? …get on track? What can you do? What would you need to do to actually maybe bridge that distance? If it’s larger, I mean, then obviously, you have to go a little bit, quote, unquote, deeper into the pool or the topic. But if you haven’t, for a while, really look at some of those criteria, sort of indicators and stuff. Because otherwise, we go through the admission cycle, and you might for an entire year of students miss some who could really, with the right approach, potentially continue on their aspiration to STEM. I’d also say, and I don’t really know how this plays out for faculty, and maybe it’s a pie in the sky kind of idea. But we’ve kind of been hearing it from some of our state folks who run the boards of regents and these other sorts of things, which is recognizing that this has occurred, recognizing that it’s always been questionable or difficult necessarily to know, if you could get a guaranteed STEM pipeline, to what extent colleges start reaching backward a little further into the actual high schools and be part of their exposure to and understanding that I might be like, let’s say the eighth or ninth grader, I actually have really, really loved the idea of becoming a scientist or going into medicine or something like that. But I’m starting to waver with my math skills or something. And so these kids aren’t really quite aware. And they’re probably already thinking college and that kind of thing, even at that young age. And if they get a sense that they wouldn’t be admitted, or I’m going to be a failure that early, then they just lose the aspiration, among other things that kind of erode aspiration sometimes in the STEM disciplines. We’ve been hearing from some of the stakeholders, maybe just a real need to actually start acknowledging out loud, whether we can meet students where they are, could we meet them where they are, because they’re the ones who lived this, they know how hard it was. And so their sensitivity to maybe that kind of like, work really hard, and then not actually be able to get into the program they desire and stuff like that. So much of it’s the right thing. But it really comes down to the emotional reaction and decision, as much as quantitatively, could they be close enough to be accommodated, which would be in our better interest if that’s even a possibility? We have to be looking at, I can’t say up front, revise anything, but we should really be, in light of what’s occurred in COVID impacts in K-12, I think we should really be looking at what are some of the hard and fast admission criteria and stuff where they exist. Now, it’s true, like less selective institutions may just end up dealing with the majority of students who have experienced learning impacts, as they always have, but given the fact that even among top performers, there was learning loss evidence, I think we can’t, in any institution, sit back and say, well, it won’t be our problem. So what is within the realm of possibility to meet students where they are, which might be somewhat off of what we would hope. But if it’s not drastically off, for example, then at least we’re taking one step in the direction of meeting them. Because I don’t know how controversial that is. [LAUGHTER] I’m a data person, so from a data perspective, it is one of the few things that I see as a real possibility as you try to make those data points overlap.

Rebecca: So we focused a bit on STEM, if we broaden that a little bit to what universities can do. We talked about admissions criteria, are there other things that we should be thinking about to help our pipelines for all of our fields and disciplines and thinking about the future.

Peace: Yes. What can we do? There’s a sort of like current and then future tense implied by that question. What I would say is, we should have already been doing something. And the reason I say that is because “Okay, so we hear that there might have been some observable, pre-COVID developments on how prepared students were based on those pre-COVID assessment score declines.” So I would ask the question, “Was this not something that folks already were having to, in the margins, sort of deal with? And did they start doing something?” Because if so, do more. Look at the possibility that there should be a sustained, broader perspective. The other thing is that, prior to COVID, the rates of college enrollment, for example, among some of the previously lesser served student populations, Hispanic students, and two or more races, the rates of enrollment were really going up. So were colleges already having to address something about what had already been a changed student population, but for some reasons other than COVID. So again, if you hadn’t been, I think it’s really compelling, you’re going to have to now, but we can kind of maybe step back and say, “Well, what did we do?” Sometimes we forget, we were just dealing with stuff in the moment. And so if we look back, just go back to prior to 2020, and then start thinking about, “Oh, what have we tweaked over there or something,” if that was happening, that would give evidence of what you might consider doing now. Because you might have already been making some adjustments, You might have been piloting some things, you might have only been piloting them with the expectation that it wasn’t something that needed to go full scale, see if they’re there, and approach it from that perspective. As regards to helping students with academic preparation needs, it’s a different situation, but it overlaps with the topic of other types of student supports, because student attention, even if they have the aptitude, might be missing some of the content knowledge. But if they have the aptitude, if their attention is distracted from not only the perennial sorts of things, that some students have to deal with, work demands or lesser educational advantages of many different perspectives. Now, they also might have that academic learning loss, that if we do put some of that supportive environment in place, then could you, STEM or otherwise, meet students at a slightly lower bar, and then still get them successfully where they need to be. We’ve been trying to do that for different student populations for a while, but some of the data would suggest just do more of the same, and until something comes, for example, K-12 data about what to expect with incoming freshmen, expect to sustain it is what I would say. I listened to some of the podcasts that you pointed me to from previous episodes. And I will say one that really resonated with me was the one about relationship-rich education. And then there were several other ones, each of which really kind of touched on various aspects. But I think that relationship-rich education episode, it was specific sorts of interventions, a lot of which, as it suggests, are not specific academic intervention. But they’re the things that we are creating learning spaces, and whether we mean them to be punitive or not, they can be sensed as punitive for students who just really had a difficult four or five years, that about they’re sensitive, so to speak. But to be intentional about learning environments, that don’t take a lot of specific kind of empirically vetted interventions even but intentionality about airing some of this, I would say, with students, like if it can be a discussion point, and you have students who are really feeling the spotlight is going to be on them because it felt like it was really hard to get through my senior year and now I’m going to give this a go. And I know it’s supposed to be challenging and stuff, but maybe they know what part of their senior year or math class was the most difficult for them, if they’re given the space to kind of articulate these sorts of things, it doesn’t have to be in an open discussion forum in a classroom, maybe not, depending on what you need to talk about. But just making it clear to students that they can actually identify some of those needs, that they will be required to be the most responsible for their own learning, but even though we’re going to keep emphasizing standards, and do everything, that we actually do mean to support them, and that we see their success in our best interest, and therefore we’re open to listening, to hearing, to believing what they say. So I would say believe it. On a spectrum, there will always be some people who are maybe struggling the most or otherwise, we would maybe take a general approach that anyone who’s saying some of this is complaining. I would say the evidence would suggest believe [LAUGHTER] that whether we thought it should have been easier for the kids, it impacted them. And so believe it and open up the possibility that if they say what they need, they might be able to identify something for us to do, it could be far simpler and smaller. Some of it can be more time consuming, but maybe if it just becomes common practice to imbue our classrooms with this sense. Students themselves can support each other, that we can hear what they say they need to support them, and it might not be half of the things that we’re worried to mention out loud because we can’t promise it. It’s nothing brilliant, I apologize. And I wouldn’t be the person to speak to in instructional sorts of research, but it definitely resonates with these academic impacts as a result of something that was a societal experience, that we need to be in the space, not just of academics, but of what part of learning methods actually are important for learners. And I’m an adult educator. I have been an adult educator. I wonder, because when I listened to some things that are more about like instructional approaches for equity and for other sorts of things for adult learners, and just what I know about the science of adult learners is I wonder if some extent, this current, quote unquote, generation… I don’t know if it’s an entire generation, but certainly, maybe 10 years worth of students… have actually had adultified in ways that maybe bring them into a space where some of the methodologies that we use in our learning environments, we might learn something from actually thinking about those adult learning and education methods. I think to have to grapple with some of the things that some students, that the entire spectrum of students, it wasn’t just pockets of students have had to deal with, maybe they’ve adultified in some ways, and then yet are not showing it because they don’t have the skills they need from school, I might advise if people kind of consult with what are some things that would be different in an adult kind of focused classroom compared to some of the classrooms that are more typically going to be populated by younger students. There might be some methods there that they can be common sense, but they’re not obvious.

John: One other topic that has come up recently is that colleges were a little bit more flexible during the pandemic in terms of dealing with things like administrative holds, and so forth. Many colleges are starting to put those back in. And one of the implications of that is that students may not be able to register for classes at the start of the term and they may be coming into classes after other students have already been in a class for a while. And I’ve seen that myself this semester, in a way I haven’t seen it since COVID. Is that something that colleges perhaps should be a little bit more careful with?

Peace: For reasons that probably don’t have to do with COVID or anything… but yes, as most things go with COVID, it just amplified possibly. I’d say yes. So on an entirely different sort of research project that I’ve recently worked with, WICHE, my organization, led a action research study of sorts with 12 public colleges and universities. And they each did their own comprehensive data analysis on this topic of every single possible hold a student could get. I mean, it would be a registration hold, like limiting their registration, or maybe access to records or something, but it could be for academic probation, and it could be for paperwork of any sort, it could be for financial aid administration, advising holds that restrict registration. They went comprehensive, they dug deep. And in the first post-COVID academic year, which was 2021-2022, by which I mean, mostly removed from the funding supplements, more than 265,000 holds were placed on roughly 125,000 students across those 12 institutions. And there is wide variation across institutions on per student rates, and stuff like that, and the reasons for them and the observed outcomes that they appear to be having on even just the next-term persistence for students. But by and large, every single institution, we’re able to, by looking at the data, find certain segments of students, part time, certain colleges and disciplines that really needed some attention for what’s a wide-scale, maybe not problem, but certainly a wide-scale sort of thing that each of the institutions would say they didn’t know how to control it. One University, for example, found that a single academic department and this, of course relates to our faculty listeners, place the bulk of all the advising holds, and a significantly higher rate per student than any other academic department or college. And it turned out that these advising holes were well intended, had developed over time as a way to manage the major requirements. But the college never got a bird’s eye view of the whole picture about how they were just sort of being administered. So when the research team at that university brought the data to the Dean, the Dean immediately recognized the holds were not operating as they were intended and took action to substantially revise how they were used. That’s advising holds, and that’s one of the most frequently used type of holds, even though financial holds get a lot of attention for the right reasons. Institutions from those 12 are also reconsidering the exact timing of registration holds within a semester in case that they’re just being too preemptive. Like, it’s easy to just be like “Mark all XYZ-term students not to be able to register until advising” and what have you. I mean, it’s cost effective, it’s kind of solution at scale, if you will. One institution experimented giving a small cohort of students, those who are at risk of academic probation, the ability to actually register at the usual time during the semester with all other students. And then they only denied the registration at very end of the semester for the very small portion actually, even from those students who were still failing. And that small experiment for that university indicated that there wasn’t a difference and no benefit from preemptively limiting registration for the whole swath of students. So why not consider changing that? …especially if unknown, some of those students might have otherwise been impeded. And I want to really mention that this is for everyone, because you, in your seat, you don’t know what other holds are being used around the institution. So any given student is not only receiving the results of the one that you’re using for the right purposes, I’m sure, but they’re receiving any number of these. And if you dial back and see the full scope, often, at least at first glance, you got like low-hanging fruit all over the place that you can reduce them. There was repeated evidence in this study that some registration holds actually did the opposite of what they’re supposed to do, or intended to do, which was to advise students so that they would take the courses that they needed. So then we heard from students, and then some of the evidence that institutions started investigating, that the mere fact of not allowing the students to register during the peak registration period when other students were competing for classes, led them to register late and take classes they don’t need. I mean, they were going to take credits anyway. And could that actual hold be the reason that they end up taking and paying for these courses that they don’t need? Now, we know that’s not what we intended, we intended that they’re taking the right courses, so there are just different way to arrive at that. And then finally, on this topic, the FAFSA… well, I’m going to have to use the word that I see in the press, it’s not my opinion… mess, that I think we need to be ready, at least in this coming fall term, that there will be students and they would be students who have financial aid, who may experience untold, even if they’ve made it through the process they choose to enroll, they could face untold additional ripple effects, one of which is that holds on records and registration are part of the financial aid administration process, so if that has been delayed, and God knows what kind of other sorts of messes have accumulated in that space, if summer is the period during which most of this should be resolved, but students may not be engaging, definitely not as be accessible during summer, I think we need to be ready. And this includes even faculty being aware of what might be happening, or something you don’t know about a given student is struggling with just something like a paperwork mess that’s distracting from their studies. It’s distracting from their attendance and what have you. The more aware we are that could be happening, and it’s told even just through the data with holds, I think it’s just one of those things to be like, why not be that aware? Why not put it out there and be like, “If something other than your coursework, for example, even your financial aid administration after a kind of rough… you know, whatever, say the right words, to characterize it… please let me know so that I can be aware and you can move past that sort of thing.” These things that just add up and distract students who might otherwise be capable in the academic content. So just a lot of different things, honestly, about administrative processes, that really well intentioned, and in many cases can be proven to help support students in that, but just the administration of them, in this case it’s evidence through like holds, needs to be revised continually and kind of perpetually revised, because at the very least, each of the institutions and it wasn’t just these 12 I mean, research by the American Association of collegiate Registrars (AACRAO), and then also ITHAKA S+R had done some research on the topic, just revealing the scope of those administrative processes. Administrative processes should not be almost like a second admissions requirement for students, if they’ve been academically admitted, they shouldn’t be derailed by having to decipher something that literally just may not be well managed, because it’s accumulated over time.

John: And we think that would disproportionately affect first-generation students, where parents are not giving them as much guidance, perhaps, in terms of navigating all those little hoops that they have to jump through.

Peace: Yes, one example here, we’ve got financial aid recipients, which are not just first-generation students. I am a first-generation college graduate. And I only know now what I didn’t know, and thank God, that kind of thing did not stop me because I can look back and go like, “Wow, that was decades ago.” What I would say is the experience that I had, and I may be the case study of one having been exposed to some of these findings with the holds, I as a parent will not stand for that. If I get wind of it with my kid when she goes to college. Whether I would or not, since she’ll have to manage her own affair and stuff like that. But she actually knows about it now too. And just that’s no more than I would stand for a lot of things with my health insurance that were giving me hassles or my paycheck or anything else that’s really super important to me. When it comes to the administration, this is not again, it’s not like pointing fingers or anything. Things just develop over time, and they need to be revised and revisited. Not least of which because you have a new generation of people, but also just because the computer gets buggy and all of a sudden it’s really standing in the way.

Rebecca: You’’ve given us lots to think about. Thanks so much for all the work that you do, Peace, and deciphering it for us as well.

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

Peace: Well on an organizational news level, we’ll be planning to really see update of the high school graduate projections in the last quarter of this year, 2024. That’s a big huge thing, especially given what I’ve just revealed to you. It’s hard to make projections or predictions about anything, I still don’t feel very much on solid ground there. And you know, I just want to mention on a personal level, me here sitting in my office, not a faculty office in the outside world, so to speak. I’m just really being intentional nowadays, like, I never have been before about compassion with myself and my colleagues. If I had students it would be compassion with my students, because it just really feels like things… zs we know, again, we just had the Debbie Downer discussion… things have been pretty frantic for years now, and it doesn’t feel like there’s any end in sight, because we’ve got some things looming on the horizon. But I’ve been really noticing that a few moments of silence and reflection, like literally just a couple, two to three moments, it goes a long way to getting me further than the two or three hours of just unrelenting pounding away at work that I also end up doing, so I mention that. We have to be kind with ourselves, no matter what we’re doing, and with our colleagues, and I would advocate for that, the compassion and kindness, bringing that to the learning environments can really go a long way, I think.

Rebecca: That’s a really good reminder, when it feels like there’s so much work to be done for sure.

Peace: We can do it.

John: …and having data on incoming students can help prepare us for what’s to come. So thank you for your work on this.

Peace: Thank you.

[MUSIC]

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

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

Ganesh: Editing assistance by Ganesh.

[MUSIC]