I spoke with Kelly A. Hogan and Viji Sathy, whose work on inclusive teaching I have reported on and who describe their approach to random calling in their recent book. Hogan pointed me to Tessa C. Andrews, who had done some research on how professors use the technique.
In that story on cold calling, I introduced Andrews, an associate professor of genetics at the University of Georgia, by explaining that: “She welcomes the growing tendency of professors, most of whom have little formal training in instruction, to seek out evidence-based teaching practices. Still, they should be careful not to take one study’s findings as their marching orders, she says. It’s important to know what, exactly, an instructor did that was effective — and in what context.”
That information does not always come through in the literature, as I described in the story. So professors who hear about an evidence-based practice could read the published findings and still not know how to adopt the practice themselves.
That, I would later learn, is just one piece of a larger problem: Professors who want to use evidence-based teaching practices face a number of challenges in seeing the desired results. Because most have little background in pedagogy or how to teach in their discipline, they may not have a framework to nest a new teaching practice into. The research literature can be vague. And on many campuses, the support professors receive when they embark on a teaching change leaves something to be desired.
I described that landscape — using cooking as an analogy — in my latest story.
It’s drawn some interesting reactions, and I want to point you toward one in particular, a Twitter thread from Karen Costa, a faculty developer.
In the article, I described a number of potential solutions, among them better preparation in graduate school, more cohesive professional development, and research findings framed to help professors replicate what was done. Costa pointed out what she sees as the solution: Putting professors in a learning environment like the one they hope to create themselves.
“Teaching people to build true classroom learning communities by having them partake in a true classroom learning community is the solution, IMHO,” Costa wrote. “It’s what provides the foundation for all the ‘teaching tricks.’”
Instructors rarely get that kind of opportunity, Costa wrote — though she has taught professors this way in her own work, creating an online learning community in which instructors learn how to teach online during the pandemic
I wonder: Have you had the chance to learn a teaching approach by taking a well-taught course modeling what you’d be doing? If so, was it helpful? How so? And how did you find the time? If not, would you like to have this opportunity available? Send me your example at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com and it may appear in a future issue of the newsletter.
Ideas for Increasing Engagement
During a webinar on re-engaging students that I moderated last week, we asked the audience to share strategies that have worked in their own classrooms. Here are some of the highlights from their responses:
Give students autonomy: “Providing options, flexibility, and opportunities for the student to make the outcome ‘theirs’ tends to yield better results for me,” one participant shared. Another suggested letting students choose their own project topics.
Don’t lecture: Let students work out solutions.
Incorporate student reflection: One participant shared these examples of good questions to pose: What went well for you in the last unit? What do you want to change going forward? Give an example of how you see yourself using this course material in your own life.
Give real-world examples in class: Tie course content to current events and what’s going on in students’ lives.
Consider multiple forms of participation: There are more ways to be involved in class discussion than speaking. Consider using digital tools so that students can participate in writing. It could be as simple as using Google Docs.
Ed-Tech Headaches
A message from our colleague Taylor Swaak:
Hey everyone! I cover tech and innovation for The Chronicle, and I need your insights for the latest piece I’m working on.
I’ve focused a lot on what happens when colleges join new ed-tech partnerships and adopt new tools, but something I haven’t looked into as much is what happens when an institution changes partners, or changes the tools it uses (whether that’s adaptive courseware, an LMS, advising software, etc.) How do these pivots affect the way faculty members teach their courses — or the way staff perform their jobs?
I’d love to hear examples of when these transitions proved disruptive, along with possible best practices for department heads or university administrators who make these decisions. Please feel free to send an email to taylor.swaak@chronicle.com by Monday, March 27. Thanks!
Do Mental-Health Breaks Help or Hurt?
In a recent Chronicle advice piece, Sarah Rose Cavanagh argues that it’s time to take another look at the trend toward giving students mental-health breaks. Cavanagh, whose field is psychology, works at a teaching center, and has a new book on mental health coming out soon, thinks that they’re not always the best response to what ails students. As she puts it: “Campus policies that offer mental-health breaks from class aim to solve one problem (student anxiety and stress) but often end up exacerbating another (student avoidance of social interaction, which tends to amplify anxiety).”
We know mental-health breaks have become a thorny issue on many campuses, and we want to hear more about what you’re seeing — and how you’re responding — in your classes. Have a story, observation, or perspective to share? Use this Google form to fill us in.
Thanks for reading Teaching. If you have suggestions or ideas, please feel free to email us at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com or beth.mcmurtrie@chronicle.com.
–Beckie
Learn more about our Teaching newsletter, including how to contact us, at the Teaching newsletter archive page.
