Through surveys and focus group conversations, we studied students' experiences with instruction in writing-intensive (WI) courses at our urban R1 university and their awareness of and attitudes about linguistic and rhetorical diversity. Specifically, we explore discrepancies between students' experiences with languaging, language judgment, and our university’s diversity and our goals as teacher-scholars who seek a university context more ready for writing instruction that embraces linguistic diversity. Echoing Baker-Bell’s (2020) discussion of students’ “linguistic double-consciousness,” our analysis demonstrates the misalignment between the valuing of linguistic diversity emphasized in contemporary scholarship and the perspectives on languaging held by our direct instructional audience: the students at our university. Importantly, while most survey participants agreed that “bringing linguistic diversity into the classroom enhances their writing,” most focus group participants generally implied a much different experience, describing writing “formally” or “in Standard American English,” for classes, with no suggestion that their writing was positively affected by linguistic diversity. This study points us to strategies that will help us get on the same conversational page with students about linguistic diversity.
This study explores queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students’ voices on establishing a sense of belonging in the classroom. This study contributes to a growing body of research on the experience of queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students in higher education institutions. Using long-form interviews with 25 students and alumni of a public research university in North Carolina, we find that the incorporation of small gestures by faculty has an outsized impact on fostering a sense of belonging among queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students. Specifically, small gestures such as the use of preferred pronouns went a long way in making students feel welcomed in the classroom. More broadly, queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students who identified with their gender assigned at birth also used the use of pronouns by professors as a cue. By virtue of professors taking the time to revise their email signatures, revise their syllabi to include language regarding anti-discrimination and scholarship by a diverse set of scholars, and make a welcoming statement aimed at establishing a safe space for queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum students, signaled to students that they were an ally.
The qualitative data was collected from doctoral students on a weekly basis. Students were asked to complete a behavior log which consisted of 10 questions and inquired about their help-seeking and studying behaviors.
A high percentage of students enter college with prior trauma, and trauma-informed practices are increasingly recognized as valuable in higher education. We examined if the tone of a syllabus would interact with levels of trauma or stress to impact participants’ perceptions of the instructor, willingness to seek help, and self-efficacy. We tested a 2 (tone: warm vs. cold) X 2 (trauma: low vs. high) experimental design and a 2 (tone: warm vs. cold) X 2 (stress: low vs. high) experimental design. College students read a syllabus, varying in tone, and then indicated their willingness to communicate with the instructor, as well as perceptions of their classroom self-efficacy and instructor attributes. Results revealed that in the high trauma condition, students attributed the most positive attributes to the warm-syllabus instructor and the most negative attributes to the cold-syllabus instructor. Student trauma did not interact with syllabus tone to predict perceived self-efficacy or willingness to communicate. Student stress did not interact with syllabus tone to predict instructor attributes or perceived self-efficacy; however, in the warm condition, high stress students revealed the greatest willingness to communicate with the instructor. The use of a warm syllabus as a tool to create a supportive learning environment benefits all college students, but particularly those experiencing high levels of stress or trauma.
Educator stress, burn-out and fatigue greatly affect faculty success and retention. The purpose of this research was to increase understanding of the lived experiences of educators and identify tangible strategies to help them thrive in higher education. Using an online open-ended cross-sectional survey and content analysis, this study explored qualitative data regarding nursing faculty experiences of stress, changes in pedagogy, and peer-to-peer faculty advice. Findings from 113 participants highlight recommendations from and for educators including pedagogical approaches as well as insights on compassion, compassion-fatigue, and self-compassion. Educator experiences are shared with the hope that faculty will use peer guidance to reflect on their own activities, make enhancements, and enact change.
College students have a variety of temptations that can keep them from making the most of their learning in and out of the classroom. Moreover, students’ habits and behaviors related to mobile device use can hinder their learning and can stymie faculty’s effective teaching practices. To explore these issues, we conducted a phenomenological study to examine first-year college students’ responses to questions about mobile devices to determine how faculty can improve classroom engagement. Findings included that students recognize the distraction that mobile devices have on their learning yet need more self-management skills to ensure that technology does not disrupt the focus required to learn. Students also revealed that they did not see the use of mobile devices in the classroom by other students as impeding their ability to learn. The implications of these results point to an opportunity to develop instructional strategies that can help students develop better self-regulation that could positively impact learning.
Through surveys and focus group conversations, we studied students' experiences with instruction in writing-intensive (WI) courses at our urban R1 university and their awareness of and attitudes about linguistic and rhetorical diversity. Specifically, we explore discrepancies between students' experiences with languaging, language judgment, and our university’s diversity and our goals as teacher-scholars who seek a university context more ready for writing instruction that embraces linguistic diversity. Echoing Baker-Bell’s (2020) discussion of students’ “linguistic double-consciousness,” our analysis demonstrates the misalignment between the valuing of linguistic diversity emphasized in contemporary scholarship and the perspectives on languaging held by our direct instructional audience: the students at our university. Importantly, while most survey participants agreed that “bringing linguistic diversity into the classroom enhances their writing,” most focus group participants generally implied a much different experience, describing writing “formally” or “in Standard American English,” for classes, with no suggestion that their writing was positively affected by linguistic diversity. This study points us to strategies that will help us get on the same conversational page with students about linguistic diversity.
In using the jigsaw technique (Aronson, 2021), groups are initially formed with each student having responsibility for one specific piece of information needed to complete the assignment. Next, expert groups of students with the same material are formed in order to explore their material and prepare to teach it to their peers. Finally, the original groups are reformed and students, each having a different piece of information, must work together to complete the assignment. This study sought to determine the efficacy of a modified online jigsaw where students received their material two days before the online jigsaw classes (one synchronous, one asynchronous) and prepared and submitted preparatory work. This allowed the class to start directly with the expert groups. Student feedback was used to determine student satisfaction with the assignment and a random sample of 50% of jigsaw assignment from two online classes was analyzed using a pattern-matching technique (Yin, 2013). These were coded utilizing the six levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and six significant learning types (Fink, 2013) as predetermined codes. The online classes were compared to each other as well as to face-to-face classes using the same modified jigsaw (Anderson et al., 2022). Both classes produced a mean score indicating the applying level on the taxonomy, well above rote learning. Also, both online courses unexpectedly scored significantly higher than the face-to-face sample. Scores were similarly positive when coded for Fink’s (2014) significant learning experiences. Both online classes yielded a mean score indicating the prominence of integration learning, very fitting for the jigsaw assignment.
In higher education institutions, many faculty members are hired because they are experts in their field of study, but not necessarily individuals who are trained in how to teach. This quantitative, quasi-experiment study examined college faculty member’s level of methodology training in relation to student satisfaction, current course performance, attendance, the belief in the need for training, and a faculty member’s sense of efficacy in teaching. In other words, does having a college professor trained in how to teach matter? The researcher found statistically significant results for student satisfaction, current course performance and attendance. The faculty member’s belief in the need for teaching methodology training showed that 96% (n = 87) of the faculty surveyed felt there was a need to be trained to teach at the college level. Faculty members want to be trained and great things can happen when faculty members develop the skills in “how to teach.”
Higher education faculty members are increasingly being asked to defend their teaching methods with research-based support. This article offers such evidence through a randomized control-group pretest-posttest study that examined whether a newly created andragogy method, Forming Optimal Classroom Environments (FOCE), increased master’s students’ research self-efficacy in comparison to the standard teaching method (STM). The article details the model, based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory, particularly his concept of self-efficacy. The model relies upon both Bandura’s publications and results over the last forty years from researchers who have investigated higher education teaching techniques based on the concept of self-efficacy. Fifteen such research-based techniques form the model. Results found no significant interaction effect when comparing FOCE with the STM. Additionally, both teaching methods demonstrated that knowledge increases were positively correlated with research self-efficacy increases. This indicates that increasing research knowledge is one factor in increasing students’ research self-efficacy. Implications of findings are discussed.
This study investigates experiential learning’s role and efficacy at a doctoral-level leadership studies program concentrating on a compulsory externship. Key to this work is the collegiate climate and collaboration of the graduate students and many participating organizations. This study employs hybrid community-based participatory research (incorporating graduate student, organizational stakeholder, and instructor perspectives) to increase knowledge and understanding of doctoral-level experiential learning and integrate that knowledge to benefit pedagogy, leadership development, and organizational-university partnerships. Results indicate that experiential learning builds robust collaboration between institutional and organizational settings. Moreover, the experiential learning experience provides a distinctive approach for graduate students, enabling them to make better work-context decisions and advance science by asking better, more salient research questions. Experiential learning also enriches the course context, encouraging students to marry their technical and academic expertise to make practical, positive changes.
