By Luis Colon
Instructional Designer
luis.colon@stonybrook.edu
On April 12th, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching held their annual Teaching and Learning Symposium. Over the years, the event has allowed educators, researchers, administrators, and more to come together to discuss various aspects of teaching and learning as well as celebrate teaching and learning practices and initiatives at Stony Brook University. The central theme of the day was Innovative Pedagogy which was at the center of conversations and various learning experiences held throughout the day. The theme illustrates the importance of finding new and exciting ways to engage with and include students in the academic environment as well as empowering students to pursue lifelong learning. Close to 100 faculty members, graduate students, staff, and administrators attended the day-long event held in Ballroom A of the Student Activities Center.
The event opened with words from Dr. Carl Lejuez, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and then led into the keynote event of the day. Dr. Marsha Lovett presented an interactive workshop on innovative teaching and how practice and feedback can be an impactful practice in the classroom. Dr. Lovett is the Vice Provost for Teaching & Learning Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University as well as a Teaching Professor of Psychology and former director of the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation. Her passion for combining teaching and research is illustrated in the book How Learning Works, which has been translated into multiple languages and is now in its second edition with the new subtitle: How Learning Works: Eight Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching.
Dr. Marsha Lovett delivered an informative and engaging keynote workshop.
The workshop focused on the importance of incorporating opportunities for students to engage in “deliberate practice” where they are challenged appropriately and focus on clear and specific goals. These opportunities allow for observed performance where students would be able to receive targeted feedback that they would be able to use to improve their skills and apply in further practice. To provide targeted feedback, Dr. Lovett recommended incorporating rubrics into assignments as a grading tool where criteria for success is outlined and to remind students to utilize the rubric before, during, and after working on the assignment.
To address the concern of allowing students to practice often without having a huge amount of grading, Dr. Lovett suggested incorporating opportunities for students to engage in active learning. She touched on many different examples of active learning strategies from shorter tasks to whole-class activities which provide students the opportunity to not only practice applying important skills but also allows students to receive feedback through the explanations of concepts and discussions that spark from active learning in the classroom.
Dr. Lovett closed with a discussion on how to provide effective SPACE (Specific, Prioritized, Actionable, Constructive, Expedient) feedback in a manner that is not only easy but also efficient and applicable to courses of all types and sizes. Her suggestions included framing your feedback in relation to your overall learning goals, highlighting priorities in the work, providing class-wide feedback on common pitfalls and errors, and developing a “key” or collection of frequently used comments to use during grading.
Following the keynote session were breakout sessions where Stony Brook University faculty and staff delivered sessions focusing on four different tracks highlighting major topics in teaching and learning today including Course Design, Student Engagement, Virtual Experiences, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). There were three breakout sessions where attendants had the opportunity to either stick to one particular track or attend sessions on different topics of interest. Faculty presenters from across both campuses discussed practical approaches and strategies to implement in classes and recounted their own observations with these innovative teaching practices.
Faculty and staff participated in learning sessions and activities throughout the all-day event.
The 2024 Teaching and Learning Symposium was an exciting event that provided an open forum for faculty, TAs, and staff to engage in discourse related to teaching and learning with their colleagues. From using generative AI as a “junk generator” and having students critique its outputs to effective practices to foster inclusivity in the classroom environment, this event addressed many facets of teaching and learning to help students feel welcomed, engaged, and appropriately challenged in their coursework and overall experience at Stony Brook University.
If you would like to learn more about how to make your courses effective, engaging, relevant, and inclusive, you can purchase a copy of How Learning Works: Eight Research-Based Principles for Smart Teachingby Dr. Marsha Lovettat this Amazon link. Linked below is the Google Collaborative Note-Taking Document from the day’s events to catch up with session materials and notes from the various sessions offered.
Have you ever noticed a difference in how you speak around your colleagues compared to how you speak with your friends and family? It’s likely that you unconsciously adjust your speech to fit professional settings, such as using more formal language and being more measured in your tone. Additionally, if you come from a place with a regional dialect, you may also adapt your speech based on the social context. For example, you may speak with a different accent or use different words or phrases depending on who you’re talking to.
Coming to campus can mean choosing new ways to speak and dress in order to fit in. Social scientists call that code-switching.
I find myself having to switch between dialects and slang when talking to professors on campus versus friends back home versus traditional family settings. As I spent my undergraduate career at Stony Brook, I naturally found myself changing tone and sentence structure to fit into the classroom setting better, especially in STEM courses. This is something that I didn’t consider in high school as everyone around me was familiar with regional slang words.
Linguists refer to this phenomenon as code-switching, which originally meant switching between two languages in a conversation (Gardner-Chloros, 2009). However, in today’s increasingly multicultural and multiethnic society, the term has evolved to describe how people shift between different cultures as they communicate with others. This can include choosing different communication styles, such as using different languages, adjusting your accent or tone, or adapting your behavior and dress.
There are many reasons why people use code-switching. Sometimes, it’s to fit in with a particular group or to convey thoughts and concepts that might be easier to explain in a specific language or communication style. Other times, it’s simply a force of habit or a way of expressing one’s cultural identity. However, the most common reason for code-switching is to identify with a particular social group, and most of the time, people don’t even realize they’re doing it (Myers‐Scotton, 2017). Code-switching happens subtly, and it’s not limited to bilingual speakers.
For example, when you leave your hometown for college, you may find yourself in a new cultural environment where you must navigate unfamiliar social structures while retaining your identity. This can involve cultural code-switching, which can include multiple aspects of one’s cultural identity, such as the type of clothing worn, hair style, speech, or behavior (Martin-Jones, 1995). Unfortunately, those from Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) communities are more likely than their non-Hispanic White counterparts to say they feel the need to code-switch. A study found that 4 in 10 Black and Hispanic adults often feel the need to change the way they talk around others of different races and ethnicities, especially among non-Hispanic Whites. Additionally, 48% of Black professionals under age 50 see code-switching as a career necessity (McCluney, et al., 2021).
Expertly navigating another culture isn’t a rejection of where you come from or a signal that you are any less authentic. Especially in the American culture that too often demands assimilation or marginalization, it matters that academic and corporate spaces are embracing people of all backgrounds. If it isn’t intentionally inclusive, it is unintentionally excluding. Therefore, flexibility and awareness is necessary in these circles to make sure everyone feels heard and empowered. Those that are in the majority have less code-switching and less adaptation required when in these settings, so it is important to bring awareness to the issue.
References:
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge University Press.
Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: Two decades of research. One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, 90-111.
By Luis Colon and Jenny Zhang
CELT Instructional Designers
luis.colon@stonybrook.edu and yi.zhang.13@stonybrook.edu
CELT Symposium on Teaching and Learning: Faculty, graduate students, staff and administrators attended the day-long event in the Student Activities Center.
The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) held a Teaching and Learning Symposium on March 24. The theme for this year’s conference was Transitions.The theme reflects how we navigate across multiple changes, such as those with technologies, learning modalities, and in our teaching practices as we strive to provide a more inclusive environment for students. Close to 100 faculty, graduate students, staff and administrators attended the day-long event in the Student Activities Center. Participants from across the university attended sessions that explored transitions and discussed how to best navigate transitions as we are going through them while also anticipating and preparing for future transitions in higher education.
The event opened with a statement from Dr. Carl Lejuez, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and promptly launched into the keynote event. Dr. Kelly Hogan and Dr.Viji Sathy presented a highly interactive workshop on Inclusive Teaching that modeled concepts, strategies, and activities that instructors can adopt in their own teaching practice. Both Hogan and Sathy are award-winning instructors from the University of North Carolina who are deeply passionate about student success, equity, and inclusive teaching. They have been featured in national publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New York Times, and others. Their recently published book, Inclusive Teaching: Strategies for Promoting Equity in the College Classroom, analyzes ways that instructors can design their courses and their teaching practice to help students feel that they are welcome and that they can succeed in the academic space.
The workshop started by bringing attention to how inequities can manifest within the learning environment. To address these inequities, Hogan and Sathy provided practical skills and strategies, saying, “It’s our job to ensure that all students have the ability to succeed.” Concrete examples included: “Provide [lecture] notes with blanks, so students can be prompted to recall and fill in the blanks. Use subtitles, visual prompts, and microphones. Pause in time to give people a chance to construct their ideas.”
Throughout the session, participants were encouraged to reflect on their own teaching experiences and to consider how they could use what they took from this session to reduce inequities in their own courses. Hogan and Sathy kept the workshop interactive by utilizing polling, think-pair-share, and other learning strategies to model the value to engaging learners and to keep the audience focused on the learning objectives of the session. The audience responded positively and many continued discussions later on as the event progressed.
Session One, titled Supporting Students Through Transitions, was led by Dr. Kristin Hall of CELT as well as Brandon Bjertnes, Jennifer Poma, and Jennifer Rodriguez of U-RISE. This session focused on the deluge of changes that higher education has experienced over the years and specifically addressed how to best support the next generation of students as they re-learn how to navigate the in-person learning environment in post-pandemic times. The presenters discussed how the definition of the “traditional college student” has changed as the next generation of college students bring more diversity to higher education institutions nationwide. This session provided strategies to address the different learning needs of these students by understanding how they learn best and prioritizing their success. The presentation combined local university data and research-backed practices to ensure that attendees would be equipped with new strategies that could make a difference in their teaching as soon as they would be implemented.
Following the first session were the Food for Thought concurrent table sessions where attendees would have lunch and the opportunity to seek out a table in the ballroom that would be focusing on a research topic of interest related to teaching and learning. The topics ranged from active learning, the utilization of virtual reality and/or augmented reality, TA training and assessment, and more to provide a space for attendees to delve deeper into topics that were of interest to them and would help them to develop their own practice further. Attendees that I spoke with expressed excitement at the opportunity to have time for discussions with others interested in similar topics and said it was a great experience to either learn new skills or reframe and refine old ones.
Virtual Reality
The CELT virtual reality team showcased the potential of virtual reality (VR) for enhancing education and collaboration through a captivating VR demo session. Held in the Student Activity Center (SAC) 302, the event drew faculty members who were eager to explore various VR applications for teaching and learning. Three interactive stations were set up, offering immersive experiences using 360 videos, WebXR Framevr, and Horizon Workrooms.
Station 1: 360-Degree Video
Mark Lang, a 360-degree video and photo expert at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS), has been revolutionizing education through immersive experiences that enhance student engagement, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mark’s collaboration with Dr. Darcy Lonsdale led to a virtual field trip to the Rocky Intertidal Zone at Crane Neck Point on Long Island Sound, allowing students to explore marine ecosystems remotely, and learn from Dr. Lonsdale’s narrative at the same time. Mark’s ingenuity in customizing equipment for challenging marine environments has improved the quality of the videos. His station attracted many interested faculty. In that demo, they were transported to a realistic sense of presence, observing the ecosystem through the Oculus headset. Faculty were thrilled to learn how this technology could be utilized to take their students on virtual excursions, making remote and inaccessible locations easily reachable for educational purposes.
The CELT virtual reality team showcased the potential of virtual reality (VR) for enhancing education and collaboration through a captivating VR demo session.
Station 2: WebXR Framevr
The second VR station introduced WebXR Framevr, an innovative platform for creating and sharing immersive content. Here, participants took a guided tour of a virtual CELT classroom, complete with interactive whiteboards, 3D objects, and multimedia resources. The experience was not only engaging but also demonstrated how virtual learning environments could help break down geographical barriers and foster collaboration between students and educators from all around the world. The WebXR virtual classroom can be accessed through VR headsets, computers, or tablets, making it a most sustainable VR solution.
Station 3: Horizon Workrooms
The third station allowed faculty to experience Horizon Workrooms, a virtual collaboration tool designed for remote meetings and team building. Participants who donned the Oculus headset or computers can join a virtual business meeting. The immersive environment enabled seamless communication and collaboration, showcasing the potential of VR to revolutionize how we work and learn together.
After testing the different VR experiences, faculty members engaged in discussions about the various features of each technology, as well as the hardware and software setup required. They also brainstormed practical applications for their own classes and considered how to integrate VR into their curriculums best to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.
Anne Moyer, Sohl Lee, Daniel Amarante, Anthony Gomez III, and Kevin Reed served on a faculty panel discussion, ‘The Rebound After Remote: How Teaching Online has Transformed Current Instruction.’
Following the break for lunch, participants continued to Session Two, The Rebound After Remote: How Teaching Online has Transformed Current Instruction. This part of the program featured a panel discussion facilitated by Dr. Carol Hernandez and Jenny Zhang of CELT, where faculty discussed what they learned and how they grew professionally as a result of teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel featured Dr. Anne Moyer from the Department of Psychology, Dr. Daniel Amarante from the Department of Chemistry, Dr. Sohl Lee from the Department of Art, Dr. Kevin Reed from SoMAS, and Anthony Gomez III, who is a PhD candidate in English Literature. The session not only provided a wealth of experiential knowledge but included inspiring anecdotes and stories as the panel shared what kept them motivated during the early days of the pandemic and how the experience allowed them to reflect and adjust their instructional approaches to meet their student’s needs. For the panelists, the time spent learning and growing during the era of remote learning would continue to be valuable to them to this day as many still use these strategies in their current teaching practice.
Session Three, Brightspace: Lessons Learned, was led by Diana Voss and Jennifer Adams of the Division of Information Technology and focused on some of the most impactful teachable moments that they have experienced as the university has shifted to using D2L Brightspace as the learning management system for Spring 2023 and beyond. The session was informative and useful as faculty, TAs, and staff were provided with some of the most useful and popular features in D2L Brightspace to help enhance the learning experience, create an inclusive classroom environment, collect student data, and more. The Q&A section of the presentation allowed the attendees to engage with the presenters and discuss some of the challenges that they have encountered throughout their transition to D2L Brightspace. Attendees either had their questions answered or were able to set up a time where they could consult with someone from the Division of Information Technology to find solutions to these challenges as soon as possible.
Overall, the 2023 Teaching and Learning Symposium delivered on its promise to address transitions in teaching and learning at the higher education level in an environment that celebrated growth and professional development for all. The event provided an open space for faculty, TAs, and staff to engage in discourse related to teaching and learning with their colleagues in a constructive manner. On the topic of education, theologian John Cotton once said that, “Those who teach, must never cease to learn.” That sentiment is as true today as when it was first written. Events such as the CELT symposium ensure that professional learning never ceases and that today’s educators become better each day.
If you’d like to learn more about the CELT Symposium, here is the Google Collaborative Note-Taking Document from the day’s events. If you have notes to share, please feel free to edit and add your notes. Also, here is a reference sheet from the keynote speakers Dr. Kelly Hogan and Dr. Viji Sathy that they shared after their session.
By Devon Coutts Ph.D. Candidate, Philosophy Devon.coutts@stonybrook.edu
It can be especially difficult for university faculty members to develop effective teaching skills. While we all invest a great deal of time and energy in learning our respective disciplines, many, if not most, of us are not given any kind of guidance for how to pass on learning to our students. Perhaps surprisingly, such guidance need not come from traditional educational theory; there is a lot we can learn about teaching from the performing arts.
What can educators learn from actors who portray a role, a scene, or a concept to an audience?
That was certainly the case for me when I taught a class for the first time. I approached preparing my classes the way I would have approached preparing for a performance. I wrote out detailed scripts for myself and rehearsed giving lectures. I included “stage notes” for myself to indicate slide transitions, points of emphasis, the questions I planned on asking the students, and the questions that I anticipated students would ask me as we went along. While this method of preparation helped me to feel more confident going into the classroom, it was rare that a class ever played out exactly the way that I had envisioned it. This is because I assumed that my students would be a model audience, when in fact, I should have been thinking about them as my fellow actors. In my experience, the most effective and engaging classes were the ones in which students took an active role in guiding the lesson: where they asked questions, responded to one another, and made new connections within and beyond our course readings.
Comparisons between teaching and the performing arts have been around since at least the 1960’s. In his 1968 article, “Qualitative intelligence and the act of teaching,” Elliot W. Eisner writes, “Teachers, like actors, attempt to communicate to groups of people in an audience-like situation . . . both the actor and the teacher employ qualities to enhance communication [and] must be able to control their actions in such a way as to capture the attention and interest of those to whom their message is directed.” In other words, for both teachers and actors, the mode of delivery is as important as the content being expressed. Although the goals of acting and teaching differ greatly, both employ similar means toward achieving them.
For instance, one professor, Aaron Langille, who teaches in mathematics and computer science at Laurentian University, shared six strategies that he uses in his classroom teaching:
Voice dynamics: Practice projecting techniques, and varying tone and intonation to convey enthusiasm.
Eye contact: Rather than reading from notes or slides, this helps you to connect with your students.
Audience involvement: Build in ways of inviting students to share their ideas or generate their own examples in every class.
Pop culture: Try to bring in relevant examples, either by asking students directly or by giving them ways to bring what’s important or interesting to them to class discussions. For example, Langille creates meme threads for students to post memes relevant to the course material.
Humor: Remember to tread with caution when it comes to humor: keep things light, try to avoid excessive sarcasm, and always be willing to laugh at yourself.
Improvisation: Try the “yes, and . . .” strategy, remember to go with the flow, stay flexible and open to surprises or new avenues of thinking that may pop up.
Langille reported that by working on his vocal dynamics and improvisation in particular, he was able to communicate his course material more effectively and with genuine enthusiasm. Bringing these certain performance elements into his teaching thus also helped him show care and concern for his students as learners, which in turn invited them to become “actors” guiding their own learning.
Some professors take the “teaching as performance” idea even further. As Noha Fikry writes in this first person article published on the website for the Society for Cultural Anthropology. Fikry quotes her former professor from the American University of Cairo, AbdelAziz EzzelArab (“Zizo”), who says: “Teaching is all about performance . . . it takes passion and performance skills.” For her mentor, Zizo, teaching “requires an active engagement with every muscle of your body, along with full and undivided attention through which a teacher plays with and builds on student engagements to inform class content and discussions.” The actual content of the lessons, for Zizo, take on secondary importance, but his dedication to his students seems to ensure that learning does not suffer as a result. Reflecting on her own experience of being Zizo’s student, Fikry writes, “Zizo’s intense passion, overwhelming presence, and wholesome engagement in class . . . captivated my entire being to remain fully focused.”
It might not be possible for all of us to embody our teaching as fully as Zizo, but we can all benefit from incorporating certain performance techniques in the classroom. Even something as simple as making eye contact, rather than reading from notes, and trying out variations in tone and pace while giving a lecture can make a huge difference to how students respond to the material, the instructor, and to one another. What is more, bringing in techniques of improvisation helps to make space for students to become like actors themselves, and to take an active role in guiding their own learning.
By Yiren Kong, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Associate yiren.kong@stonybrook.edu
How will human beings ultimately choose to harness the power of ChatGPT and AI?
You have probably heard the word ChatGPT thrown around recently. It is the new trending artificial intelligence (AI) tool that can do a lot of things. One of the most well known features of ChatGPT is to produce content based on the prompt you give to it. As an example, I asked ChatGPT to write a poem about Stony Brook University and here is what it composed:
Beneath the sun and sky so blue, Stands Stony Brook, a sight to see. Where knowledge grows, and dreams take flight, A place where students shine so bright.
With halls of learning, and fields of green, A place where one’s true self is seen. Where diversity and inclusivity thrive, And the future is shaped by those who arrive.
From science to arts, and engineering too, Stony Brook has something for me and you. With professors who inspire and guide, And opportunities that cannot be denied.
A place of growth, and a place of pride, Stony Brook is where we reside. With memories made and friendships true, Stony Brook, we’ll always carry you.
Pretty impressive, right? So what is ChatGPT exactly? ChatGPT is an AI Chatbot developed by the company OpenAI. It was released in November 2022. GPT stands for Generative Pre-training Transformer. Essentially, ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) which relies on the probability distribution of word sequences. Simply put, ChatGPT is trained with a large amount of text inputs, as explained in this video. It summarizes, predicts, and generates new information based on the information that was given. It is smart enough to not use nonsensical or grammatically incorrect word sequences (due to low probability) and instead to produce content that is more human-like.
ChatGPT is indeed a critical step forward for AI and technology. However, what does it mean for higher education? Is it easier for students to cheat on assignments and exams now? I believe a lot of us are worried about the impact of ChatGPT and AI on education.
A recent study published by professor Christian Terwiesch at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School documented how well GPT-3, an earlier version of ChatGPT, could do in the final exam for one of the courses in the school’s MBA program. It turned out that GPT-3 performed pretty well on certain questions and not so well on others. Surprisingly, GPT-3 made mistakes on simple calculations while perfectly answering more complex questions such as those on process analysis. In the meantime, GPT-3 showed the ability to learn and adapt. Once GPT-3 was given more hints by the instructors, it was able to rectify the once incorrect answers. In the end, GPT-3 was able to receive a B to B- grade on this exam.
Surely, there is a sense of uncertainty and fear when we face something that seems so shiny and powerful. But do educators need to panic yet? In my honest opinion, probably not. As we have learned so far, ChatGPT relies heavily on learned information. It can produce “original” content but that does not equal “original” thoughts. If we grow more mindful towards the assignments and exams that we design, asking questions that elicit more meaningful and sophisticated answers, it will be very difficult for ChatGPT or AI in general (in its current form) to follow. Meanwhile, the anti-cheating AI technology to detect what is created by AI is also developing and that will greatly help combat the misuse of technology like ChatGPT. In addition, having more learning activities that require personal communication (i.e., presentations, group work) will also offset the potential negative effects on learning that may be brought by AI technology.
On the other hand, the power of ChatGPT can also be used by instructors in various ways to enhance their teaching strategies. For example, ChatGPT can answer straightforward questions about basic course requirements for the instructors so they have more time to answer content questions. In other instances, instructors can use ChatGPT to generate prompts for classroom activities or use it with students to brainstorm.
So-called new technologies can push us to reassess what we are doing and why. For example, there is an interesting quote by Socrates in the Phaedrus (274b-277a). Plato mentioned that his teacher once said, “[writing] will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.” But today, writing has become a routine and indispensable part of our life and helps us in numerous different ways. Similarly, let’s take a deep breath and take some time to truly understand what ChatGPT and AI means to us. After all, the most important thing is how we, the human beings, ultimately choose to harness the power of ChatGPT and AI.
Do you want to find out more? Do you have ideas for how to embrace or deter the use of ChatGPT as part of your teaching practice? Sign up for the CELT panel discussion: Trends and Tips: Assessment in the Classroom. Email CELT@StonyBrook.edu to sign up for our listserv and get the latest updates about this and more!
Writing to Learn (WRL) is a pedagogy approach that incorporates short low-stakes written assignments, peer-review, and feedback to help students gain conceptual understanding. A literature review of more than 200 studies that reported using WTL strategies in STEM courses summarizes that this approach has been shown to help students meet learning objectives related to content knowledge, conceptual understanding, scientific method, critical thinking, effective communication, metacognition, and professionalization (Reynolds et. al., 2002). Despite the evidence, WTL is still not as widely used as it could be. Join us this Wednesday for a panel discussion with faculty that have used WTL in their STEM courses.
Writing to Learn in STEM Panel Discussion Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2022 at 1 p.m. ET. In person: CELT Faculty Commons E1332 Melville Library and Zoom
Research shows that using Writing to Learn strategies in STEM courses helps students gain communication and critical thinking skills.
References
Finkenstaedt-Quinn SA, Petterson M, Gere A, Shultz G. Praxis of Writing-to-Learn: A Model for the Design and Propagation of Writing-to-Learn in STEM. Journal of chemical education. 2021;98(5):1548-1555. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01482
Reynolds JA, Thaiss C, Katkin W, Thompson RJ Jr. Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012 Spring;11(1):17-25. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064. PMID: 22383613; PMCID: PMC3292059.
Is it impostor phenomenon or is it something else? The term imposter phenomenon was coined in 1978 by researchers who studied high-achieving women. It is used to describe feeling like a fraud that is experienced by some accomplished individuals, especially when undertaking high profile roles or assignments. However, critics point out that the 1978 study did not include women of color, poor women, or women from a variety of professions. These are limitations that we now recognize as pertinent to the lived experience of people who are marginalized in society. Now that we are more aware of larger systemic issues such as racism, classism, and other discriminatory practices that cause individuals to doubt themselves, Tulshyan and Burey (2021) write, it’s time to change the focus from trying to fix “women at work instead of fixing the places where women work.”
We will have a chance to discuss impostor phenomenon and strategies that instructors can apply to their teaching so that students do not have to suffer through self-doubt. Join us on Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 11 a.m. ET for a CELT Inclusive Teaching Panel discussion, Addressing Impostor Phenomenon Through Your Teaching Practice.
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
What are some ways to mitigate feelings of impostor phenomenon that your students may experience?
References
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
Tulshyan, R. & Burey, J. (2021). Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/stop-telling-women-they-have-imposter-syndrome
In my previous post, I outlined the problem that many undergraduate students do not take full advantage of faculty office hours, and gave a few suggestions for how instructors can encourage more students to attend. In this post, I want to take a look at another aspect of the problem: many instructors do not believe that it is their responsibility to encourage students to attend. The question guiding this post is: Why not? What assumptions underlie how instructors view their responsibilities around office hours?
To try to answer this question, I visited three instructors during their office hours and asked each of them what they were doing to encourage students to attend. Two said they included on the syllabus when and where office hours would be held. The third not only included when and where they would be, but invited students to drop by if they have specific questions, need extra help with the assignments, or if they simply want to talk. Of the three, he was the only one who had any students attend office hours within the first six weeks of the semester.
Do you explain to your students why they should come to office hours? Why or why not?
The first two instructors gave revealing answers about why they do not explicitly encourage students to attend. One explained that she expected students would attend if they had specific questions or wanted to discuss their grades on significant assignments. The other expected students to be able to monitor their own progress and assess for themselves whether to seek extra help in office hours. In other words, both assumed that students already know what office hours are for, and thought that there was no need to explain that asking specific questions, discussing assignments, or seeking extra help are reasons to attend.
However, recent research brings to light how these assumptions put certain students at a disadvantage. Assumptions around the proper use of office hours are part of the “hidden curriculum” of a university: those unspoken rules and expectations about how to interact socially with instructors and how to take advantage of institutional resources. As Anthony Abraham Jack notes, students rely on “cultural competencies developed before college” to navigate the hidden curriculum, but not all high schools have the resources to support students in developing such competencies (Jack, 2016). For instance, the “doubly disadvantaged” – students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who enter college without any kind of prep or private school experience – tend to “lack the skill set or desire to engage faculty, even as they perceive their peers reaping the benefits of forging relationships” (Jack, 2016). These so-called “doubly disadvantaged” students experience higher degrees of disengagement, to the extent that some feel unable to reach out to professors even when they are at risk of failing a class. One student reports that she did not realize that she needed to contact her professor until he reached out to her first: “Even though he said if you don’t turn in this paper you’ll fail, it wasn’t until I received that email that I realized I needed to email him” (Jack, 2016). While many students eventually learn the skills to engage with faculty and to advocate for themselves academically over time, they may also miss out on access to institutional resources and opportunities to build relationships until sophomore or for some, even the junior year. That could mean missed opportunities to apply for summer jobs, internships, grants, and other experiences that enrich the curriculum and lead to careers after graduation.
Jack’s research highlights the importance of meeting students where they are, rather than where we expect them to be. It is not fair to assume that all of our students know how to seek support when they are struggling. Since very simple things like explaining what office hours are for or emailing students who are falling behind can contribute significantly to creating an accessible and inclusive learning environment, we as instructors ought to do more to normalize this practice in our institutions.
Reference
Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1-19.
By Devon Coutts, Ph. D. Candidate
Student Instructional Assistant Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
devon.coutts@stonybrook.edu
When I was a teaching assistant, students often came to meet with me. Sometimes, especially before exams, there were so many that I had to offer additional sessions and bring in extra chairs to accommodate them all. But when I became an instructor, that changed. Suddenly, students rarely came in. And when they did, the meetings would be brief, lasting only the time it took for me to answer a question or two. I began to wonder: what happened? Why did my students stop coming? It could have been because they felt intimidated by my new role as an instructor, or because my office hours conflicted with their other classes. Or, perhaps my students did not believe that attending office hours would benefit them?
Are students coming to your office hours?
Mine is not an isolated experience. Overall, faculty report that students don’t come to office hours. However, research shows that both students and instructors benefit greatly from interactions outside of the classroom. Building positive relationships with instructors personalizes the learning experience, and encourages students to succeed in all of their courses. Conversations during office hours are less structured and more spontaneous than lectures, and can generate new research opportunities and insights into the course material on both sides of the discussion. At the same time, the instructor is gaining experience in the art of teaching–and more importantly how to revise their teaching practice to connect with learners.
There are several reasons why students don’t come to office hours. Griffin et al. (2014), noted that the most important determining factors include things like perceived convenience of the office hours, the course level, or whether the course is required or an elective. In a recent National Public Radio story (Nadworny, 2019) students described office hours as “‘intimidating’ or ‘terrifying,’ ” because attending office hours means “talking to the smartest, most powerful person you know.” Because of such anxieties or the perceived inconvenience of attending, some students prefer to email, to ask questions during class, or to meet with a TA instead. In a research article titled, “Office hours are kind of weird:” Reclaiming a resource to foster student-faculty interaction, the authors studied survey responses from 625 undergraduate students and found that oftentimes students do not really understand what office hours are for or why attending could benefit them Smith et al. (2017).
So, how can instructors take a more active role in encouraging students to seek meetings outside of class? One option is to require students to come to office hours as part of their grade. An instructor who takes this approach assigns 5% of the final grade and requires students to complete two one hour office visits with him, the TA, or one each. In an editorial for Inside Higher Ed, the instructor explained his approach and reported that many of his students said they found it very or extremely useful (Nowak, 2021). Another option is to reframe office hours as tutoring sessions or review (Joyce, 2017). “Tutoring” has a clearer purpose than the traditional, open-ended “office hours,” and its benefit for students needs no explanation. Alternatively, holding office hours in public spaces on campus, in libraries, cafes, or even in the hall outside of class, can help students feel more comfortable approaching professors for help. Offering virtual sessions can also be a good way to make office hours more accessible to students whose schedules prevent them from attending in person.
As instructors, if we want students to take advantage of office hours, then we ought to make it clearer to them why office hours are valuable. However, raising student interest in attending office hours is only one part of it: instructors also need to make an effort to anticipate student anxieties and be available to meet with students.
The approaches mentioned here offer a few ideas that instructors can think about for restructuring their office hours to make them more accessible. In my next few posts, I’ll explore the barriers preventing students from attending office hours, and discuss ideas for instructors looking to restructure their office hours in greater detail.
How do you approach office hours? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to leave a comment. Join us for a CELT Inclusive Teaching Discussion Panel on Wednesday, Oct. 19 at 1 p.m. ET.
Griffin, W., Cohen, S. D., Berndtson, R., Burson, K. M., Camper, K. M., Chen, Y., & Smith, M. A. (2014). Starting the conversation: An exploratory study of factors that influence student office hour use. College Teaching, 62(3), 94-99.
Joyce, A. (2017). Framing office hours as tutoring. College Teaching, 65(2), 92-93.
Nadworny, E. (2019). College students: How to make office hours less scary. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/05/678815966/college-students-how-to-make-office-hours-less-scary
Nowak, Z. (2021). Why I require office hours visits. Opinion: Teaching and Learning, Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/12/15/benefits-requiring-students-come-office-hours-opinion#.YyoRGLBq4Q0.link
Smith, M., Chen, Y., Berndtson, R., Burson, K. M., & Griffin, W. (2017). “Office Hours Are Kind of Weird”: Reclaiming a Resource to Foster Student-Faculty Interaction. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 12, 14-29.
By Hyunjin Jinna Kim Ph.D., Curriculum & Instruction
Postdoctoral Associate
Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) hyunjin.kim.4@stonybrook.edu
Practicing inclusive teaching, especially in the STEM fields, is recognized as a challenge. A 2017 study by Oriana Aragón and colleagues found that an instructor’s values provide a clue as to their ability to implement pedagogies that embrace equity.
In the article Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices, which ran in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, researchers investigated the relationship between faculty beliefs and the adoption of inclusive teaching practices in STEM. Results demonstrated higher adoption of inclusive teaching practices from those who endorsed multicultural ideology compared to the endorsement of a colorblind ideology.
Using survey data from 628 attendees of the National Academies Summer Institutes on Undergraduate Science Education, the study measured faculty ideologies and the influence on inclusive teaching adoption processes. In terms of ideologies, the study measured colorblind and multicultural ideologies as opposing viewpoints. The colorblind ideology refers to beliefs that emphasize sameness and equal treatment with no attention to students’ differences. The multicultural ideology, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs that embraces differences and seeks to support underrepresented or marginalized students. The measurement of adopting equitable teaching practices included instructor actions such as adopting diverse teaching methods, reducing implicit biases, or providing classroom content with contributors from diverse backgrounds.
The Summer Institute curriculum was designed based on an EPIC model: Expose, persuade, identify, and commit. In the study, educators were exposed to inclusive teaching practices; then persuaded by personal values, a sense of duty to the organization, and the negative consequences of not implementing them. Next, educators identified with the inclusive teaching practices by seeing the compatibility of the practices with their teaching approaches. Commitment is the final step where educators implemented new teaching practices. This was measured by asking participants to indicate the inclusive teaching practices they applied to their teaching as a result of the Summer Institute.
The data collection started in October 2014, when a request to respond to a survey was distributed to all who attended the National Academies Summer Institutes between 2004-2014. The Summer Institute was sponsored by the National Academies and funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and ran annually from 2004 to 2015. Typically, the program is a 4-day intensive training where participants focus on active learning, assessment, and inclusive teaching practices. Results of the study showed a higher rate of changes in the implementation of inclusive teaching practices after attending the Summer Institute.
The results are important to educators as they suggest that critical self-awareness is key for faculty who seek to eliminate exclusion of traditionally underrepresented students in STEM courses. Despite the self-report biases and the well-intended faculty who committed their time to attend the Summer Institute, it is critical to recognize that faculty ideologies and orientations could potentially affect efforts in implementing inclusive practices. The good news is that faculty can play an active role in reviewing their own biases regarding their teaching ideologies and in revising their teaching practice.
What are your thoughts on this study? On making your own teaching practice more inclusive? Leave a comment below.
Reference
Aragón, O. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Graham, M. J. (2017). Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(3), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000026
