By Carol Hernandez, Ed.D.
Senior Instructional Designer
carol.hernandez@stonybrook.edu
Is creativity a skill you want to increase in your teaching practice?
Perhaps we all in some way, strive to be creative and to use creativity in our teaching and learning practices. But have you stopped to think about how creativity is defined and measured? How is it taught?
Creativity is a critical skill as identified by the 21st Century Skills Framework, which focuses on a comprehensive list of abilities, skills, and attitudes that young people around the world will need to be successful in their personal, professional, and civic lives. This is becoming increasingly important as each day we are witnessing artificial intelligence and other technologies showing up to help us do our work. While at the same time, there is no end to the number of wicked problems we are faced with in every aspect of our lives, which may feel increasingly complex.
Complexity on its own, is not inherently good or bad. But it does present us with an opportunityto be creative in our teaching practice. In the 30s and 40s, Ellis Paul Torrance was a teacher in Georgia who noticed that some of his students had off-beat ideas, but were not necessarily fitting into the traditional classroom structure. He believed that creativity and standard intelligence tests were not measuring the same thing. He wanted to explore and measure creativity on its own, which led him to create the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. He is now considered the Father of Creativity Research. And you can learn more about his ideas here. As defined by Torrance, creativity is (1966, p. 6):
A process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on;
identifying the difficulty;
searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies;
testing and retesting these hypotheses and possible modifying and retesting them;
and finally communicating the results.
Using this definition, how could you adjust your teaching practice to help your students be more creative? If you’d like to test your own creativity, there are a number of free tests online. Here is one offered by AULIVE, an online resource for creativity and innovation.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking—norms technical manual research edition—verbal tests, forms A and B—figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel Pres. Inc.
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
