Community Conversation: Facilitating Difficult Conversations in the Classroom

Posted on November 16, 2023 by abrusini

The Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI) hosted a community conversation on Facilitating Difficult Conversations in the Classroom on Thursday, November 9^th, as a follow-up to our recent blog post on the same topic. The faculty panel included: Sherita Golden, Chief Diversity Officer at the School of Medicine & Hugh P. McCormick Family Professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Andrew Perrin, SNF Agora Professor and Department Chair of Sociology, and Mike Reese, Associate Dean of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation & Associate Teaching Professor of Sociology. Caroline Egan from the CTEI facilitated the event.

Mike Reese opened the conversation by acknowledging that current events are an opportunity to apply course concepts but the instructor’s goal is to maintain civility on sensitive topics. He described some of the strategies he uses in his classroom, such as setting ground rules for class discussions. Reese explains the intentions of the rules to his students, which is to create a space that makes everyone feel comfortable participating. Some of his ground rules include:

Support arguments with evidence
Use ‘I’ statements – do not speak for others in the class
Do not generalize about groups
Allow students to speak without interruption (with caveat that the instructor can cut them off if they go on too long)
Listen actively – be open to what others are saying
Name-calling, sarcasm, inflammatory accusations are not permitted

Reese noted in his classes that historically the issue is less conversations becoming heated and more that students are hesitant to talk about politically-charged topics. He mentioned strategies to spark engagement, such as having students first work in small groups to discuss a topic. He also uses structured debate activities where students are assigned a specific perspective. In the debate activity, the pressure is taken off of the student since the role/perspective is assigned by the instructor.

In cases of traumatic events, Reese stated that instructors are not required to discuss the topic if they are not comfortable doing so, but should at least acknowledge the event. Research suggests students want events to be acknowledged, not ignored. Reese shared that a student this past week shared they don’t need to discuss the issue in every course, as the constant reminder may be counterproductive, but would prefer to discuss the event in courses that speak directly to the issue. The main message is be intentional about how you plan to discuss traumatic events and what boundaries you will place on the conversation before arriving to class.

Andrew Perrin continued the conversation by describing two principles he subscribes to:

While all people deserve safety, no ideas deserve safety. The way we honor ideas is by submitting them to rigorous argument and evidence and testing them out.
Emotions running high is not a reason to avoid discussions – it’s a reason to have better discussions. Explain and demonstrate to students how to listen thoughtfully to ideas and make judgments based on evidence.

While he supports Reese’s ground rules, Perrin takes a slightly different approach: he will often set the context for students, explain a scenario, and have them listen to their peers discuss the issue, recognizing their own ideas may turn out to be wrong. His pedagogical goal is to make sure that all reasonable ideas are raised so that they may be examined and challenged. At times Perrin will make arguments that he doesn’t believe in because he feels it’s important for them to be part of the conversation.

He believes most students politically are not committed either to the left or the right; they might be in between, they might not have thought about it much, or they might have mixed opinions. The instructor’s job is to make sure the debate includes more ideas than just those from the 5-10% on the right and left. Perrin acknowledged that it might be hard to engage on difficult topics and students might be uncomfortable, but that is an acceptable outcome in a university classroom. He stated, “Too often we think the goal is to come to consensus. I think the goal is to understand why people feel the way that they do.”

Sherita Golden teaches medical students in a clinical environment as well as staff from all parts of the medical establishment. One of the issues that she addresses in her classroom is why we continue to see inequities in health, for example, the inequity of non-whites consistently having a higher prevalence of diabetes than whites. Golden explains to her students how historical discrimination and racism dating back to the time of enslavement have led to the current situation; eugenics theory suggesting the biological inferiority of non-white populations, trust violations by the medical establishment due to unconsented experimentation on enslaved and marginalized communities, as well as healthcare clinician bias against minoritized patients. These are all factors adversely affecting healthcare quality and access today. Another example is the historic practice of redlining, which made it more difficult for African-Americans to obtain mortgages and build wealth through their homes. Golden uses these historical contexts to explain the roots of current social movements to her students and health system staff.

Golden acknowledged that conversations can become politically charged and offered the following suggestions to help diffuse the situation:

Acknowledge the humanity of the person speaking – listen with compassion and intent to respond rather than react.
Commit to providing information to the person if you aren’t sure how to address the issue in the moment.
Adopt a learner’s mindset:
- What is the historical context of the issue?
- What do you know about the lived experiences of those expressing the concern?
- How might you benefit from knowing more in your teaching/leadership role?
Recognize that there are two sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The discussion continued with panelists taking questions from participants.

Q : I appreciate your [Perrin’s] idea of exploring other ideas of a particular subject, but at the same time, as we examine these charged issues and try to be objective, sometimes the discussion becomes politically neutral. I’m struggling with how I can resolve this issue of technical neutrality.

AP: I don’t think there are 2 sides, but actually 4, 5, or even more sides to every story. There are lots of different dimensions. One reason I don’t ask students to debate positions according to what I’ve set is because I think it is important for them to feel like what they’re saying matters and that they care about the issue. I’m not trying to say, “all ideas are fine” but instead, “all ideas deserve to be listened to.” I do think historical context is important, as well as real world evidence, so it’s important not to let them stick with things that aren’t true.

MR: The classroom space allows students to voice lots of different ideas, and sometimes students come out not knowing where to go from there. Here is where reflection may help – ask them to articulate how they have moved on a particular issue, if at all.

SG: The goal is not to come to a resolution, but help them improve their argument and use of evidence. I encourage students to read constantly – learning is a lifelong process. Reading will help me (and them) back up why I feel a certain way, with evidence.

Q: How do you create space to honor opinions that you feel are wrong or will harm others?

AP: The key is how we say things. There is a reason to challenge the idea because it’s there – it is also submissible to evidence. The person should be able to explain why they think what they think. It really is important for people to be pushed to explain why they think this or that, where is the evidence, what makes this true. I like to ask, “Is there anything you could learn that, if true, would end up changing your position on this?” It is important to distinguish between what is true and what people think. So even potentially harmful ideas need to be discussed, if only to bring evidence to show why they are harmful. That said, it is also important to protect students who may be hurt. I will sometimes remind students that there are probably other students in the room who may be negatively affected by what they’re saying.

Guest: This makes me think about a case in class: we watched a film about a kidnapped woman in China who was sold to a villager as a wife. In the film there was a sympathetic attitude to the men in the villages that I disagreed with. This kind of sentiment was hard to watch.

MR: This is why reflection as the instructor is important, too. If the discussion did not address your goals for the class, then perhaps reflect on how you might structure it differently next time.

SG: One of my favorite phrases to use in these situations: “Help me understand why you made that comment… What is at the root of what you’re saying?” I work in a clinical setting as well as an educational setting. We must show dignity and respect to all patients. We fall back to the core values of JH medicine: we need to be respectful of different points of view and perspectives.

Q: How do you de-escalate a conversation when it becomes highly charged?

AP: I like charged topics, I don’t feel scared of them. I like to ask students: “Why do you think that, what makes you say that, what do you think your opponents think?” It’s not useful for me to throw around “flashpoint” words; it works better for me to stick to the questions I just mentioned. In the classroom, you do have to move forward at some point. I ask the questions and try to keep the conversation moving.

MR: It’s also ok to take a break.

SG: I suggest listening sessions. This is a very important way to learn – let the person talk, we can all learn from that.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation

Image Source: Unsplash

Lunch and Learn: Generative AI – Teaching Uses, Learning Curves, and Classroom Guidelines

Posted on November 9, 2023 by abrusini

On Tuesday, October 3rd, the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI) hosted its first Lunch and Learn of the academic year, a panel discussion titled, “Generative AI: Teaching Uses, Learning Curves, and Classroom Guidelines.” The three panelists included Jun Fang, Assistant Director of the Instructional Design and Technology Team in the Carey Business School, Carly Schnitzler, KSAS instructor in the University Writing Program, and Sean Tackett, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine. The discussion was moderated by Caroline Egan, project manager in the CTEI. Mike Reese, director of the CTEI, also helped to facilitate the event.

The panelists began by introducing themselves and then describing their experiences with generative AI. Jun Fang loves new technology and has been experimenting with AI since its inception. He noticed the faculty that he works with generally fall into two categories when it comes to using AI: some are quite concerned about students using it to cheat and are not ready to use it, while others see a great deal of potential and are very excited to use it in the classroom. In speaking with colleagues from across the institution, Fang quickly realized these are common sentiments expressed by faculty in all JHU divisions. This motivated him to lead an effort to create a set of AI guidelines specifically geared toward faculty. The document contains a number of strategies for using AI including: designing engaging course activities, providing feedback for students on their assignments, and redesigning course assessments. The section on redesigning course assessments uses two approaches: the “avoidance approach,” which involves deliberately designing assessments without AI, and the “activation approach,” which intentionally integrates AI tools into the curriculum. The document includes specific examples of many of the strategies mentioned as well as links to widely used generative AI tools.

Fang described a recent scenario in which a faculty member was concerned that students were using ChatGPT to generate answers to online discussion board questions. To mitigate this situation, Fang suggested the faculty member revise the questions so that they were tied to a specific reading or perhaps to a topic generated in one of his online synchronous class sessions. Another suggestion was to have students submit two answers for each question – one original answer and one generated by ChatGPT – and then have the students compare the two answers. The faculty member was not comfortable with either of these suggestions and ended up making the discussion more of a synchronous activity, rather than asynchronous. Fang acknowledged that everyone has a different comfort level with using AI and that one approach is not necessarily better than another.

Carly Schnitzler currently teaches two introductory writing courses to undergraduates and is very open to using generative AI in her classroom. At the start of the semester, she asked students to fill out an intake survey which included questions about previous writing experiences and any technologies used, including generative AI. She found that students were reluctant to admit that they had used these technologies, such as ChatGPT, for anything other than ‘novelty’ purposes because they associated these tools with cheating. After seeing the results of the survey, Schnitzler thought it would be beneficial for students to explore the potential use of generative AI in class. She asked students to do an assignment where they had to create standards of conduct in a first year writing class, which included discussing their expectations of the course, the instructor, their peers, and how AI would fit in among these expectations. The class came up with three standards:

AI tools should support (and not distract from) the goals of the class, such as critical thinking, analytical skills, developing a personal voice, etc.
AI tools can be used for certain parts of the writing process, such as brainstorming, revising, or editing, but students must disclose that AI tools were used.
If there appears to be an over-use or over-reliance on AI tools, a discussion will take place to address the situation rather than disciplinary action. (Schnitzler wants students to feel safe exploring the tools without fear of repercussion.)

This assignment comes from an open collection of cross-disciplinary assignments that use text generation technologies, mostly in a writing context. TextGenEd: Teaching with Text Generation Technologies, co-edited by Schnitzler, consists of freely accessible assignments submitted by scholars from across the nation. Assignments are divided into categories, such as AI literacy, rhetorical engagements, professional writing, creative explorations, and ethical considerations. Most are designed so that the technologies used are explored by students and instructors together, requiring very little ‘expert’ technological skills. Schnitzler noted that there is a call for new submissions twice each year and encouraged instructors to consider submitting their own assignments that use text generation AI.

Sean Tackett was initially fearful of ChatGPT when it was released last year. Reading article after article stating how generative AI was going to “take over” pushed him to learn as much as he could about this new technology. He began experimenting with it and initially did not find it easy to use or even necessarily useful in his work with medical school faculty. However, he and some colleagues recognized potential in these tools and ended up applying for and receiving a JHU DELTA grant to find ways they could apply generative AI to faculty development in the medical school. Tackett described how they are experimenting with generative AI in a curriculum development course that he teaches to the med school faculty. For example, one of the tasks is for faculty to learn to write learning objectives, so they’ve been developing prompts that can be used to specifically critique learning objectives. Another example is developing prompts to critique writing. Most of Tackett’s students are medical professionals who do not have a lot of time to learn new technologies, so his team is continually trying to refine prompts in these systems to make them as useful and efficient as possible. Despite being so busy, Tackett noted the faculty are generally enthusiastic about having the opportunity to use these tools.

The discussion continued with a question and answer session with audience members:

Q: How do we transfer and integrate this knowledge with teaching assistants who help manage the larger sized classes? What about grading?
ST: I would advocate for the potential of AI to replace a TA in terms of grading, but not in terms of a TA having a meaningful dialogue with a student.
JF: Generative AI tools can be used to provide valuable feedback on assessments. There are a lot of tools out there to help make grading easier for your TAs, but AI can be used for the feedback piece.

Q: How might professors provide guidelines to students to use generative AI to help them study better for difficult and complex topics?
MR: One possibility is to generate quiz questions – and then have students follow up by checking the work of these quizzes that have been generated.
CS: Using a ChatGPT or other text generation tool as a reading comprehension aid is something that has been useful for non-native English speakers. For example, adding a paragraph from an academic article into ChatGPT and asking what this means in plain language can be helpful.

CE: This gets to what I call ‘prompt literacy,’ which is designing better prompts to give you better answers. There is a very good series about this on Youtube from the University of Pennsylvania.
Sean, what have you experienced with prompting right now, in terms of challenges and opportunities?
ST: We’re trying to put together advice on how to better prompt the system to get more refined and accurate answers. After a few iterations of prompting the system, we refine the prompt and put it into a template for our faculty, leaving a few ‘blanks’ for them to fill in with their specific variables. The faculty are experts in their subject areas, so they can tell if the output is accurate or not. We’re in the process of collecting their output, to put together best practices about what works, what does not work.

CE: What would you all like to see in terms of guidelines and best practices for AI on a web page geared towards using AI in the classroom?
Guest: And along those lines, how to we move forward with assigning research projects, knowing that these tools are available for students?
ST: I think it could be useful for students to learn research skills. They could use the tools to research something, then critique the results and explain how they verified those results. It can also be useful for generating ideas and brainstorming. Another thought is that there are a number of domain specific generative AI databases, such as Open Evidence which is useful in the medical field.
CS: To Sean’s point, I think a comparative approach is useful with these tools. The tools are very good at pattern matching genre conventions, so doing comparative work within a genre could be useful.
JF: I think ChatGPT and other generative AI tools can be useful for different parts of the research process, such as brainstorming, structure, and editing. But not for something like providing or validating evidence.

Q: As a grad student, I’m wondering how the presence of AI might force us to refine the types of questions and evaluations that we give our students. Are there ways to engineer our own questions so that the shift of the question is changed to avoid the problem [of having to refine and update the question] in the first place?
CS: There is an assignment in our collection that talks about bringing an assignment from past to present. Again, thinking in terms of a comparative approach, ask ChatGPT the question, and then ask your students the same question and see how they compare, if there are any patterns. I think it can be helpful to think of ChatGPT as adding another voice to the room.
JF: We have a section in the guidelines on how to redesign assessment to cope with generative AI related issues. We suggest two approaches: the avoidance approach and the activation approach. The avoidance approach is for faculty who are not yet comfortable using this technology and want to avoid having students use it. One example of this approach is for faculty to rework their assignments to focus on a higher level of learning, such as creativity or analysis, which will hopefully reduce or eliminate the opportunity for students to use AI tools. The activation approach encourages faculty to proactively integrate AI tools into the assessment process. One example of this approach I mentioned earlier is when I suggested to a faculty member to rework their discussion board questions to allow students to submit two versions of the answers, one created by them and the other by ChatGPT, and then analyze the results.

Q: What is the ultimate goal of education? We may have different goals for different schools. Also, AI may bridge people from different social backgrounds. In China, where I grew up, the ability to read or write strongly depends on the social status of the family you come from. So there is some discomfort using it in the classroom.
CS: I feel some discomfort also, and that’s what led to the development of the guidelines in my classroom. I posed a similar question to my students: if we have these tools that can allegedly write for us, what is the point of taking a writing class? They responded by saying things like, “writing helps to develop critical thinking and analytical skills,” to which I added, “being here is an investment in yourself as a student, a scholar, and a thinker.” I think asking students to articulate the value of the education that they want to get is really helpful in determining guidelines for AI.
ST: Going to school and getting an education is an investment of your time. You pay now so you can be paid later. But it’s not as transactional as that. AI is already in the work environment and will become more prevalent. If we’re not preparing students to succeed in the work environment, we are doing them a disservice. We teach students to apply generative AI in their classes so they are prepared to use it in the workforce.
JF: In the business school, everything is market driven. I think education can fit into that framework as well. We’re trying to provide graduates with the confidence they need to finish the work and meet the market’s need. We know that generative AI tools have really changed the world and they’re starting to emerge in every part of our life. We need to train students to realize that ChatGPT might be part of their education, part of life in the future, and part of the work in the future as well. There are things AI can help us do, but there are still fundamentals that students need to learn. One example is calculators: we still need to learn from the beginning that 1 + 1 = 2.
CE: This question also reminded me of asking your students, what is the ultimate purpose of a research paper? Where do they think ChatGPT should fit into the research process?

Q: I work at the library and we’re getting lots of questions about how to detect if students are using AI. And also, how do you determine if students are relying too heavily on AI?
JF: We also get this question from our faculty. The most used detection tool right now is Turnitin, which is embedded in Canvas. But the level of accuracy is not reliable. We encourage faculty to always validate before accepting the results. For faculty who are actively using AI in the classroom, we also encourage them to provide clear guidance and expectations to students on how they are allowed to use it. This may make it a little easier to determine if they are using it correctly or not.
MR: There are some other tools out there, such a GPTZero, ZeroGPT, but to Jun’s point, the difficult thing is that it’s different than plagiarism detection which says this is copied, and here’s the source. These tools say there’s a probability that part of this was taken, but you can’t point to a direct source. It’s up to instructors whether or not to use these tools, but consider using them to facilitate a conversation with students. In my own classes if I suspect academic misconduct, I usually start by asking them to explain, talk to me about what is happening before I make accusations. With these tools, there tends to be no hard evidence, just probabilities that something may have happened. This is definitely an area we’re all still learning about.
Guest: I was just thinking that having a conversation with students about why they are turning to the tool in the first place might prevent misconduct. Instead of sending them to an academic misconduct committee, we could have these conversations, like Carly mentioned. Making students aware of the limitations of the tool could also be helpful.
CS: Yes, I say that in our guidelines that I’m prioritizing conferences with students over immediate disciplinary action. I try to pre-empt anxiety students might feel around using these tools. Designing your assignments in a way that reduces anxiety is also helpful. For example, I tend to design assignments that build on one another throughout the semester in smaller bits, rather than one giant chunk all at once.

Q: Is there any discussion around combining AI with teaching, such as generating personalized explanations of a topic? Students will have different levels of expertise and comfort with different topics.
ST: We’re trying to do this, to create a teaching aid for the future. We’re planning to use it to create assessment items.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation

Image Source: Pixabay, Unsplash

Facilitating Difficult Conversations during Class

Posted on October 18, 2023 by abrusini

As a faculty in sociology, I often teach content about which people have strong opinions. For instance, public debates about the changing use of pronouns and Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Law” are a good opportunity to apply theories on the social construction of gender and sexuality but can be flash points for students. Discussions about structural racism can be challenging when your classroom includes students hailing from diverse countries with different histories of acceptance or oppression. I also encourage students to bring current events into our discussion to exemplify concepts in class, but again, students may hold different opinions on those events. In this post, I share strategies I use or learned from others about how to facilitate conversations about sensitive or politically charged topics.

Ground Rules

Ground rules can be the foundation for facilitating respectful conversations that also help students feel more comfortable participating. Ideally this is done at the start of the semester but can be done during the semester if current events require it.

I set the tone in my class by stating on the first day that “We can attack ideas in this class, but not people.” I explain there is a difference in critiquing an argument versus dismissing someone’s point or groups of people more broadly. It can also help to give examples in your discipline of both productive and unproductive critiques.

Below are ground rules I use, but it can help to search online for additional ideas. Involving students in co-creating these rules is an excellent practice as it generates buy-in and motivates their acceptance of and adherence to guiding principles. Displaying these recommendations prominently in your Canvas site or distributing them to students is a good idea as well, especially if students need reminders of these rules. The recommendations below apply to both instructors and students, though there are additional guidelines for instructors as needed.

Support your arguments with evidence. – Use known facts, published research, relevant readings, and previous arguments to support your argument.
Use “I” statements. – It’s OK to articulate your perspectives, feelings, or relevant personal experiences, but don’t try to speak for other people in the class.
Do not generalize about groups. – This relates to the previous point. We can make arguments with known actions or statements by groups, but we should not make overgeneralizations about them.
Allow students to speak without interruption. – This requires people to listen more to others. My only caveat is that as the instructor I have the right to nudge students if they talk too long or I feel their points are drifting.
Listen actively. – We need to do more than not interrupt. We need to pay attention to what is being said so we can respond appropriately. Taking written notes on what others are saying is a good way to practice active listening.
Keep an open mind. – Our goal is to learn from each other. I share that my own opinions and beliefs on numerous topics have evolved over time thanks to engaging with others in open discussions including with students in my class. Give specific examples of this when possible.
Name-calling, sarcasm and inflammatory accusations are not permitted. – We need to maintain respective dialogue when we are debating ideas from different perspectives.
Take a break – If the discussion becomes too heated or intense, suggest a five- to 10-minute break to allow people’s minds to reset and disengage from threat mode. Getting water, a snack, or taking a short walk can all provide just enough respite to bring the temperature down in the room.

Establishing ground rules and then practicing them in class, even very explicitly, can help students understand how to engage not just in class but in various situations. The academic environment may be new for them, however, and they may need guidance. Gently acknowledge comments without judgement that don’t follow the ground rules. Point out your goal is to help students learn how to debate ideas in a way that facilitates open conversation.
Strategies for Facilitating Conversations

As the instructor you can leverage different strategies to facilitate open conversations.

Be intentional about what topics you bring into the conversation. Consider your learning objectives when you choose topics to discuss or apply to course concepts.
Start discussions in small groups to give students a safer space for initiating their discussions. Designate one person to summarize the group’s discussion instead of asking each student to speak.
Consider assigning conversational moves in advance. For example, “Make a comment that brings two other comments together,” or “Disagree with someone respectfully, using evidence to support your claim,” or “Summarize the conversation and suggest a question that still needs consideration.”
For smaller classes, use the round robin format in which each student speaks in succession and builds on the previous comments made.
Include time for quiet reflection – possibly through a short writing activity – to help students prepare their responses.
Choose readings and materials that present different perspectives. This can help students understand that complex ideas can be applied in different ways and that researchers or practitioners are not always in complete agreement.
If you notice conflict between students, use assigned seats for the whole class to provide some separation.

Dealing with Traumatic Events

Even if your course does not cover sensitive or politically charged topics, there may be times when the community is affected by traumatic events. Consider changing your lesson plan as appropriate to address the situation.

Acknowledging the event is important. If you aren’t comfortable facilitating a discussion on the topic, at least recognize the event that occurred.
Provide an opportunity for students to share. Listen openly and ask for confidentiality in what is shared during class. Articulate ground rules as appropriate. Consult Inclusive and Equitable Teaching Practices as well.
Encourage students to use wellness resources and services if they need emotional support or mental health services.
Be aware of student behavior that may suggest you need to talk to them individually. Students may be directly impacted by the event. While most faculty are not qualified to counsel students, you can connect them with resources available through the university. Allow students to take a break outside of the classroom if needed.
Consider extending deadlines on assignments as needed.

It’s important to remember we learn by working through challenges whether in math, design, or textual analysis. For this reason, we should not shy away from discussing sensitive or difficult topics. The role of the instructor is to create an environment where people understand how to make arguments and feel comfortable engaging to help us understand and extend ideas or situations we study.

Add your thoughts in the comments below.

Mike Reese
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation and associate teaching professor in Sociology.

Additional Resources

Getting Started with Establishing Ground Rules – Published by the Cornell Center for Teaching Innovation
Guidelines for Discussing Difficult or High-Stakes Topics – Published by the U of Michigan Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
Addressing Disruptive Social and Political Events – Published by the Stanford Teaching Commons
Teaching in Times of Crisis – Published by the Vanderbilt Center for Teaching
Addressing Difficult Events in the Classroom – Published by the MIT Teaching + Learning Lab
Teaching in Difficult Times – Published by the UC Berkeley Center for Teaching and Learning
Handle Difficult Moments with Respect and Sensitivity – Published by the Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation
Using Cognitive Empathy in the Classroom – Published by UNC Charlotte Center for Teaching and Learning

Image Source: Mike Reese, Pixabay

ChatGPT: A Brief Introduction and Considerations for Academic Integrity

Posted on January 30, 2023 by abrusini

I’ve been reading about the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on teaching and learning for some time. A close family friend gave me a book entitled In the Mind of the Machine by Ken Warwick in 1998. The Education Horizon Report Advisory Committee, of which I was a member, first listed artificial intelligence as an emerging technology likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry in education in 2017. November 2022 brought the long-anticipated arrival of ChatGPT beta with accompanying media attention.

What is OpenAI and ChatGPT?

OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research lab. Open AI developed a chatbot called ChatGPT (GPT = Generative Pre-trained Transformer) and an image generation application DALL-E 2. ChatGPT is a natural language processing model that is trained on hundreds of billions of documents and websites. Users can interact by asking it questions or submitting statements to which it can generate responses. For example, here is ChatGPT answering a question about itself:

Prompt: What is ChatGPT?
“ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI. It is trained on a diverse range of internet text and is able to generate human-like text in response to various prompts. The model can be fine-tuned for various natural language processing tasks such as language translation, question answering, and conversation.”

While ChatGPT received most of the media attention in winter 2022-23, there are other chatbots that exist like Jasper and Chincilla.

What are the main concerns?

The main concern for instructors is students asking OpenAI applications to complete assignments for them. This includes writing essays or research papers along with coding assignments for which ChatGPT is trained. Students can also ask ChatGPT to answer test questions.

Things to Consider

While the capabilities of artificial intelligence applications will continue to evolve, there are currently some limitations. For example, current models do not include articles behind paywalls (e.g., subscription journals). This makes it harder for students to generate essays based on peer-reviewed research. While the models are trained on a large number of documents, the applications’ responses to specific, focused inquiries tend to be vague. My colleagues and I asked ChatGPT to write a strategic plan for the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation. It suggested relevant ideas, but it was generic and too broad to be useful. That said, we could have used it as a starting point for brainstorming a draft.

Some applications, like Turnitin, are claiming they can detect if students used ChatGPT, but like any technology, these applications are not perfect and students can work around them (e.g., editing the essay produced to make it closer to their own writing style).

Academic Integrity

Use of OpenAI applications can fall under academic integrity policies like plagiarism, but the gray zone between clearly plagiarized work and an academic support tool is large. For example, most instructors would consider it plagiarism for students to ask ChatGPT to write a paper based on a writing prompt from class. But is it OK for students to ask ChatGPT for a summary of research on a topic, which they then use to generate a bibliography as the basis for a research paper they write? Instructors should learn more about how ChatGPT and other AI technologies work so they can inform students what is considered appropriate use of AI technologies and what is not. Here are additional strategies to consider to help you and your students navigate this new territory:

Scaffold the activity by asking students to turn in an outline and iterative drafts that address comments and feedback from the instructor or teaching assistants. This requires students to show progression in a way that is difficult for tools like ChatGPT to produce.
Ask students to write papers using a shared Microsoft document through One Drive so you can see the version history.
Use writing prompts that are more specific or require students to cite specific texts.
Use AI tools to teach students. For example, generate essays in ChatGPT and have students critique them.
Discuss with students what is considered acceptable use of AI technologies (e.g., generating a summary of a field) and what is not (e.g., responding to a specific assignment prompt).

A colleague also commented that as we engage with ChatGPT and other AI technologies, we are feeding it data it can use to improve its models. They own the submissions as part of the terms of agreement when accounts are created. Explain to students that they may be giving over their intellectual property if they are using these tools. If they submit your tests for ChatGPT to answer, they may be violating your intellectual property rights.

Where to Learn More

Here are some resources to learn more about AI technologies:

Try ChatGPT or DALLE-E (requires creating an account)
New Modes of Learning Enabled by AI Chatbots: Three Methods and Assignments by Ethan R. Mollik and Lilak Mollich (through JHU subscription)
Avoiding Cheating by AI: Lessons from Medieval History by Ken Mondschein
AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry? by Chris Stokel-Walker (Nature).
Why I’m not Scared of ChatGPT by Christopher Grobe (Chronicle of Higher Education through JHU subscription)
Will ChatGPT change the Way You Teach? By Beth McMurtire (Chronicle of Higher Education through JHU subscription)
ChatGPT: The End of Programming (As We Know It) by Frank Andrade

We are all orienting ourselves to this new technology and best practices are evolving. The CTEI will continue to share more information and host discussions over the semester.

Mike Reese
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation and associate teaching professor in Sociology.

Image Source: OpenAI Logo, Pixabay

A Faculty Follow-up Discussion: Re-engaging Students for the Fall Semester

Posted on November 16, 2022 by abrusini

On Tuesday, November 8th, the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI) hosted a discussion on re-engaging students for the fall semester. At faculty request, this discussion was a continuation of one initially held in August, when participants explored the challenges they faced with the return to in-person teaching in Spring semester 2022. During that session, faculty offered potential ways to address disengagement in a student population who reported high levels of “stress, fatigue, and anxiety” in a post-pandemic world. This phenomenon has been noted in many media outlets, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, which recently hosted a webinar on addressing student disengagement and summarized it in a follow-up article. Mike Reese, Associate Dean and Director of the CTEI, moderated the conversation.

The session kicked-off with instructors offering their general sense about how student engagement in their Fall courses compared to their Spring courses. The overall assessment was that problems remained, though there were some bright spots:

One instructor noted that attendance in his course’s Friday session, led by teaching assistants, was down almost 50% in the recent week.
Another noted that Fall was “a little bit” better than Spring, when she was still teaching online via Zoom, but she continued to observe a lot of “struggle” among her students, exacerbated by a lack of knowledge of how to address it.
One participant, who regularly polled his students on their overall well-being on a scale from one to five with five being the highest score, said he was seeing a lot of ones and twos among his students. However, he started this practice during the pandemic so he didn’t have any pre-pandemic data to baseline the response.
A fourth participant had observed that her students’ behavior was better, but they also had large gaps in their subject-matter knowledge due to the instructional disruptions incurred by the pandemic.

Time management issues quickly became the dominant topic when one faculty member pointed out that this was a particular problem for his students. Other participants also offered examples of students struggling with time management; one faculty member said that she had received a lot of requests for extensions from students who admitted these were due to poor time management, and another said that she observed an all-senior class – usually a population with a good sense of time management –also contending with this issue. The reason for this, attendees speculated, may have to do with the full return to on-site courses and residential campus life. Students may be excited to dive back into campus life, trying to take advantage of opportunities, like lab-based research, not available during the pandemic, and becoming over-committed as a result. Another reason offered was that the time management skills needed to negotiate pandemic life and instruction needed to be re-adjusted for more typical university life.

The post-pandemic gap in content-specific knowledge, particularly in the STEM disciplines, has prompted some academic programs to start looking at ways to make changes to their large introductory or gateway courses. One participant said her program was looking to make data-based adjustments informed by placement tests, in-person attendance at office hours, and data from Canvas classrooms and learning-support software, such as ALEKS.

As a group, the participants generated several useful ideas to enhance engagement in both large lecture-style courses and smaller seminar courses:

Increasing structure for small-group discussions in large classrooms: One instructor had added question prompts and a pre-identified spokesperson to her small-group break-out discussions to increase student focus, participation, and output during these sessions.
Flipping one class meeting a week to start homework: Another instructor had flipped one class meeting a week to provide students with a pre-determined timeslot in which to start their homework each week and receive real-time instructional feedback. This helped students with time management and on-time completion of the homework.
Requiring a one-to-one meeting outside class: An attendee required that seminar students meet with him one-on-one at least once outside of class, which helped build relationships and comfort with class participation.
Requiring student socialization outside class: A participant volunteered one approach that she heard about via the Chronicle Webinar: to require that students meet and socialize outside of class twice a month to work on “conversation fundamentals” – how to have a balanced conversation, how to use open-ended questions – to build “social sophistication and stamina” in in-person environments post-pandemic.
Mid-semester surveys: Two instructors distributed mid-semester surveys to students that specifically targeted issues of classroom engagement, and one queried participants about their time-on-task for assignments and activities. Though survey participation was low in one course, both instructors were reviewing and integrating appropriate feedback.
Panels of former students: One attendee noted that he had invited a panel of former students to talk about their experiences in the class and what contributed to their success. The credibility of the speakers and the authenticity of the guidance resonated with the current students.
Strategic use of Learning Assistants or Course Assistants: Some instructors in large or introductory courses used Learning Assistants or Course Assistants – undergraduate students successful in the subject area who are trained to provide in-class instructional support – to scale up instructional reach and feedback. These assistants had been particularly crucial in courses that needed more hands-on instructional support, structure, and feedback.

Many instructors found themselves structuring tasks and activities for students that, pre-pandemic, may not have required direct guidance and direction. Given this need, the importance of student meta-cognition – knowing how to learn something – was raised, which resulted in the following suggestions:

Using learning science data to persuade students: One participant noted that her students were very responsive to research-based arguments. When she offered students evidence-based examples of effective ways to learn (she cited The Learning Scientists blog as a good source of information), they responded affirmatively to these suggestions. Leveraging learning science research when suggesting better ways to study – retain, recall, and synthesize content – might be one way to help bolster meta-cognition.
Building in self-reflection on effective learning approaches: An attendee recommended integrating opportunities for students to self-reflect on the usefulness of teaching interventions, such as the one-course-meeting-a-week flipped classroom for starting homework. Such reflection on why a certain approach worked (in this case, in-class time dedicated to starting homework with in-person instructional feedback) may help students build (or re-build) their meta-cognitive muscles.

The conversation turned to tools that could support both targeted in-class instruction and meta-cognition skill development. Brian Cole, Associate Director of the CTEI, said that he had been investigating different technologies that would enable real-time assessment of content comprehension and upvoting of particularly confusing content areas. Melo Yap, the new Sr. Educational Research Consultant at the CTEI, volunteered Kahoot as a tool that could offer such flexibility.

A faculty member suggested developing a toolkit with proven meta-cognitive strategies that could be inserted into the Canvas sections of each course. Instructors and students could access this toolkit on-demand and integrate into it their course design for both “just-in-time” support (e.g., before a high-stakes test) and more long-term development. The CTEI offered to collect any already-available guidance to help students learn more effectively in an effort to start collating this information in one place.

Caroline Egan
Caroline Egan is a Project Manager in the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation, supporting instructional training and development for Hopkins faculty, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and staff.

Mike Reese
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation and associate teaching professor in Sociology.

Image Source: Unsplash

Faculty Discussion: Re-engaging Students for the Fall Semester

Posted on September 6, 2022 by abrusini

The return to in-person teaching last year brought with it a high degree of uncertainty for students and faculty. Professors reported that stress, fatigue, and anxiety contributed to higher levels of student disengagement, disconnection, and languishing than in pre-pandemic courses. Faculty at other schools reported similar trends with several articles and essays published in the NY Times and Chronicle of Higher Education over the past several months. At faculty’s request, the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI) hosted a discussion for instructors to share their experiences and brainstorm solutions for Fall 2022 and beyond. Over thirty instructors participated. Brian Cole, Associate Director of the CTEI, moderated the discussion.

Faculty attendees reported that students seemed to struggle transitioning from online classes to in-person classes last spring. One person shared that colleagues at other institutions were reporting the same concerns. The behaviors described included students:

expressing concerns about being prepared for high-stakes exams
regularly being distracted by devices during class
skipping class more frequently than before the pandemic
requesting more mental health accommodations
acting more aggressively toward instructors (One instructor said this behavior is more likely seen by instructors of certain races and gender.)

Participants felt these behaviors could be traced to several sources. The pandemic was traumatic for many students suffering from social isolation and the stress of living under the threat of COVID. Faculty also felt some students were not as prepared for their classes because pre-requisite college classes or high school courses were online and employed pass-fail grading schemas. Other instructors reported students feeling stressed about other global events (e.g., political polarization, Ukraine war). While the pandemic may be fading or becoming normalized, faculty shared that other stressors are constants that continue to weigh on students.

This led to a discussion about when it was appropriate for faculty to engage students about their stress and anxiety over global crises. Instructors teaching in the social sciences can more easily integrate discussions of current events into their curriculum. Is it appropriate for faculty in science and engineering to dedicate class time to social stressors that affect students? Most participants said yes. Several shared they provide opportunities for students to talk about current events that may impact them and ask students openly, “How are you doing? What’s going on with your peers?” to give them space to talk. Several faculty participants asked for advice on how to set boundaries on the amount of time to dedicate to these discussions during class and what types of topics to discuss. Those that dedicate class time to talking about global issues or student mental health concerns felt it was appropriate to occasionally dedicate 15 minutes of class time to connect with students and build relationships with them. As for topics, instructors should choose topics they are comfortable discussing.

Another source of stress mentioned was the number of hours students are working. One professor shared he has seen an increase in students trying to work full time while attending school. It’s not a large number, but definitely an increase that was likely precipitated by the flexible schedules during COVID when classes were more likely to be asynchronous. Another instructor shared that she observed an increase in students working part-time jobs during COVID. She felt it was important to be more explicit with students about expectations for deadlines and the time it takes to complete assignments to help students balance working outside of class. However, many participants felt it was not appropriate for students to work full-time. Another instructor reported an increase in students continuing summer internships into the academic year. Students see this as a pathway to a job after graduation and are motivated to continue working. This may be a good opportunity, but again, faculty are concerned students are overcommitted.

Some faculty record their lectures for students to review later, while others questioned if this would result in students skipping class. Several faculty responded with strategies to encourage students to attend. These included using activities that motivate students to show up and awarding points for participating in those activities. One instructor said he records the videos, but shares them with students only upon request. If a student is regularly requesting them and not showing up for class, he engages them to learn more about why they are skipping to address any issues. He shares all of the videos with students the week before the exam. Another instructor said she has recorded her lectures for 15 years, and uses activities to encourage student attendance and engagement with each other. She stresses, “I’m not the only person in the room. You also learn from the other students when you are here.”

Another instructor asked if recording the class discourages students from asking questions. Two instructors responded it did not affect behavior in their classes, but that could be because they teach large courses so students are generally less likely to ask questions during class meetings.

While the pandemic was stressful for everyone, faculty reported it provided opportunities to experiment with new teaching strategies. Many are now trying to evaluate which changes to keep or drop. One instructor said their decision is based on the time required to implement the strategy and its impact on student learning. Another instructor said she offered more low-stakes assessments while teaching online. She felt this helped reduce the stress of high-stakes assessments, but she is now considering if she is requiring too much of students. The value of offering more low-stakes assessments is that students get more regular feedback throughout the semester.

Another instructor is hearing from students that instructors are assigning more applied learning assignments that leverage technology (e.g., arcGIS) which require significantly more time to complete. While it’s good to have interdisciplinary projects and collaborate with other groups, such as data services at the university, we need to remember that this also requires students to work with different groups and learn additional skills, all of which take time.

Overall, faculty felt the goal is not to penalize disengagement, but to encourage students to engage. Faculty participants shared additional strategies to address student disengagement which are summarized below:

Eliminate online tools for the course that are not critical.
Offer asynchronous work days. This is not an off day, but a chance to work on class assignments. One instructor shared that students really liked having a day to work on their projects.
Clearly communicate expectations for class (e.g., assignment deadlines, pre-class work expectations) on a regular basis and in multiple modalities (e.g., verbally in class, on Canvas, via class email).
Build in flexibility to assignment deadlines. One instructor allows students to skip up to two assignments, and their grade is replaced by the average of the existing assignments.
Another instructor shared a similar approach: she does not permit any extensions on homework even if a student is sick, however, she replaces missing grades with the average of the other assignments if the student presents a viable excuse for missing the deadline. The instructor uses this approach because it allows her to share the homework solutions immediately after the deadline while students are still intellectually engaged with the assignment.
Another instructor builds in quizzes related to the homework to encourage students to look at it early. For example, the day after homework is posted, students are presented with a quiz asking them to describe what the homework is asking them to do. They don’t need to solve it, but it motivates them to look at it early instead of waiting until the last day when they will have less time to get help.
Consider using the discussion board in Canvas or encourage students to attend office hours if you don’t want to dedicate class time to check in with them.
Share wellness resources from JHU including the Student Well-being blog about talking with students about current events: https://wellbeing.jhu.edu/blog/. They also provide a page for dealing with more acute issues when students are in distress: https://wellbeing.jhu.edu/resources/faculty-staff/
Consider limiting the use of devices (phones, laptops, etc.) to minimize distractions during class.
Share mental health resources with your students including Mental Telehealth (free counseling via video chat), Calm app (great for sleep, focus, mindfulness), A Place to Talk (peer listening), Stress and Depression Questionnaire (10minute confidential assessment with feedback w/in 48 hours from a Hopkins clinician).
Share how you manage your stress to demonstrate that students are not the only ones dealing with these issues. One participant said, “We might feel it, but if we don’t say it, they don’t know it. If you talk about it, then you open up a space for students to talk about their own stressors.”
Consult inclusive teaching practices and Hopkins Universal Design for Learning resources which can help instructors build flexibility into their teaching. One instructor said that being flexible includes building in processing time to help students prepare for their assignments. This includes emotional processing time on difficult topics.

Clare Lochary from the Office of Student Health and Wellbeing shared that the Counseling Center sees two clear spikes in incoming clients each semester. The first is six weeks into the semester when students begin to realize they aren’t doing as well as they want in their courses. The second is during the last two weeks of the semester as they prepare for final papers and exams. Faculty should be aware of these cycles and pay special attention to student behavior so they can refer students to help resources or address concerns about academic performance.

Mike Reese
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation and associate teaching professor in Sociology.

Image Source: Unsplash

Lunch and Learn: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

Posted on March 9, 2022 by abrusini

This post summarizes recent Lunch and Learn discussions among Homewood faculty about methods for evaluating teaching effectiveness. This discussion supported the work of the Provost’s ad hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluations. Provost Kumar established this committee in response to the Second Commission on Undergraduate Education report, which included a recommendation to establish a new system for the assessment of teaching and student mentoring by faculty. This was the first of multiple conversations the committee will hold with faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates.

Fifty faculty joined one of two discussions (February 16^th and 22^nd) moderated by Vice Deans of Undergraduate Education, Michael Falk and Erin Rowe, along with Mike Reese of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI).

The Vice Deans reviewed principles and objectives drafted by the committee to collect faculty feedback and suggestions for improvement. Attendees then discussed methods of improving how we evaluate teaching based on these principles and objectives that go beyond the current system of teaching evaluations. The following summarizes some of the attendees’ comments.

Teaching Evaluations serve multiple purposes: students use them to choose courses, faculty use them to improve their teaching, Homewood Academic Council uses them in promotion and tenure decisions, and schools use them for program assessment and accreditation. One mechanism – course evaluations (or student evaluations of teaching) – should not serve all these purposes.
Using multiple methods of evaluating teaching (peer evaluation, review of course materials, etc.) and not just traditional course evaluations, will minimize student bias against underrepresented minorities.
An attendee shared that when she worked at a more teaching-focused college, it included a committee of peer evaluators – faculty trained to provide feedback. The instructor would meet with the peer evaluator before class to discuss lesson plans and then debrief after the observation. Junior faculty were reviewed more frequently than senior faculty. They tried to find a peer match based on discipline. This review was used as a formative assessment and also summative assessment when someone came up for promotion.
Another professor shared that at West Point, instructors attended formal training on how to teach. Senior faculty came in three times during the semester to observe new instructors in class with a defined rubric that was shared beforehand. As for course evaluations, only the instructor saw them; the department chair did not. Student comments did not play any role in promotion.
With more faculty recording their classes, peer evaluators could review those recordings and provide feedback on those videos. This is apparently done at the Harvard Business School.
Someone raised the question, what is considered “quality teaching?” and suggested there must be some standard. We need to consider how much we weight the entertainment value of sitting in class or comfort level of students as opposed to being inspired to pursue a career or digging in deeper [learning more about topic]. Who decides that focus for course evals and how to do it? Another person asked the individual who raised the question for his thoughts on this question. He responded, “In engineering, every class must have an objective and we need to demonstrate we are collecting data to show we are meeting it. Another is to have an expert – maybe in sociology or psychology – to write a question that measures if the class in interesting or stimulating to be in.”
One instructor raised the question of who are the experts to conduct evaluations. Attendees mentioned instructional design staff at the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation, but also felt that discipline-based education experts were needed. Teaching faculty familiar with discipline-specific teaching strategies (e.g., math, engineering, humanities seminars) should also be considered.
For evaluation of teaching effectiveness, the most important thing is measuring what the students have learned and, ideally, retained over long periods. We need concept inventories and tests of student knowledge beyond the end of a class, possibly in future semesters. Peer evaluations could be part of the process of helping instructors improve, but they don’t really measure learning.
An instructor shared, “At my previous institution, we assessed teachers through narratives describing changes they made [in their course] based on new studies that have been published in their areas, in addition to participation in teaching workshops/conferences, and adoption of new practices. I would also suggest we evaluate teaching rigor in some of the same ways we evaluate scientific rigor. Look at whether faculty make their resources open and accessible, use OER, etc.”
One professor suggested faculty share with students the purpose of course evaluations and how they will be used. It may discourage complaining. “I tell them I read their comments and my boss reads them. I’ve seen biased comments decline since I shared that with students.”
Another instructor said the dean’s offices could provide a script for instructors to read about how course evaluations are used and the importance of students civilly communicating feedback.
Course evaluations should be filtered for racist and misogynistic comments so faculty are not subject to them.
Course evaluations could include a checklist of comments so student feedback is more specific. Students would select the statements that are relevant to their instructor in addition to entering open comments.
It would make the surveys longer, but someone suggested every comment students make should be required to include at least one specific example as evidence.
One instructor asked, “How do we tease apart teaching effectiveness so they focus on learning and not grading?”
Is it possible to ask students to reflect on gateway or core classes sometime in the future to identify how the course provided foundational skills for future courses or co-curricular activities (e.g., internships)? Someone added, “This week I had a senior tell me, ‘I didn’t realize that those concepts really would come up over and over in my other classes, but they did!’” Another attendee shared, “They also report back 3+ years after graduating to say that they use something they learned in class that during the time they thought would be useless.”
Perhaps it would also be helpful to leverage our alumni network as one way to capture the enduring effects of learning from various classes.
Another instructor mentioned that it can also help to ask students for feedback during the semester so you can adjust instructional methods.
Whatever system is developed should not place undue administrative burden on faculty who are already taking on more administrative burdens.
An instructor remarked that once a change is implemented, faculty will need training on the new system of evaluation. It will also help encourage professors to be open to this process. Support for instructors assessing the results of evaluations will be critical.

One faculty member shared two books to inform the committee’s future work:

Developing Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation Systems by Raoul Arrerola
Peer Review of Teaching: A Source Book by Nancy Van Note Chism

If you have questions or comments about the teaching evaluation process, feel free to email Mike Reese.

Mike Reese, Associate Dean and Director, CTEI
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of University Libraries and Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation. He has a PhD from the Department of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

Image Source: Lunch and Learn Logo, Unsplash

Lunch and Learn: Inclusive Pedagogy

Posted on November 15, 2021 by abrusini

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021, the Center for Educational Resources (CER) hosted a virtual Lunch and Learn: Inclusive Pedagogy. Karen Fleming, Professor in Biophysics, and Mike Reese, Associate Teaching Professor in Sociology and CER director, each presented strategies that are important to them in helping to make their classes more inclusive:

Recognize that everyone comes from a different place with different experiences. Fleming mentioned The Privileged Poor, a book by Anthony Jack, that addresses the struggles faced by less privileged students after being admitted to elite universities. She explained that taking students’ backgrounds into consideration and embracing differences is vital to their success.
Try to instill a growth mindset. In her teaching, Fleming acknowledges to her students that the work is difficult, it can be a struggle at times, and it’s ok if you don’t get it right the first time – this is all part of learning. She tells her students that everyone has unlimited potential and encourages them to keep practicing and they will come away with new skills. Fleming stressed the importance of trying to get students to internalize this way of thinking and offers her students a great deal of positive reinforcement throughout the semester.
Show the humanity of science and diversify materials. Fleming described how she makes an effort to showcase diverse scientists who are working in the field – people of color, women, etc. Students need to see role models and images of people that look like them. Like Fleming, Reese explained how he also makes an effort to display photos of diverse experts in the fields as he discusses key findings or theories in sociology..
Learn students’ names. Reese acknowledged this can be a challenge if the class is large. He suggested instructors print out the student photo roster from SIS and/or bring tented name cards to the first class for students to display on their desks (if teaching in person) to help learn names. Reese stated that students are more engaged and come to office hours more often when he makes an effort to learn their names.
Use non-competitive grading strategies. Reese noted that this was one of the recommendations in JHU’s Second Commission on Undergraduate Education (CUE2) report. Using straight grading, rather than curved, is one example. Another example is to add a standard number of points to every students final score if they overall average is lower than expected, which might suggest the test was more challenging than intended.
Conduct a mid-semester survey. Reese described how he administers a brief mid-semester survey that is anonymous. He tells students ahead of time that he may not be able to address every concern, but will do his best to support them. Once submitted, he summarizes the results for students and outlines any changes he plans to make.
Explain the purpose of different components in your class. Reese gave the example of something basic like office hours. First generation students may not understand the purpose or value of office hours – it is a chance to ask for help but also discuss career goals with instructors. Taking the time to explain resources that are available to students has proven very useful.
Follow the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL is an approach to designing instruction in flexible ways in order to reduce barriers to learning. For example, instructors can provide alternatives when giving an assessment – some students may take an exam, others may submit a paper, etc. Reese acknowledged that this often means more work on his end, as he will be grading different types of assignments. He noted that although the format may be different, he is assessing students according to the same learning objectives.

The presentation continued with faculty attendees offering comments and suggestions of their own:

One faculty member explained how she thinks very carefully about what language she uses with students to mitigate her own implicit biases. She thinks about how certain words (i.e. binary language) may unintentionally signal something to students and is careful to avoid this whenever possible. Fleming agreed and stated how important it is that we all regularly examine our own biases; we should be open with students and let them know we are making an effort to communicate without bias. Reese mentioned the Harvard implicit bias test which is a tool that can help all of us discover our own hidden biases.
Another faculty member shared how she has found success with specifications grading to help instill a growth mindset. With specifications grading, students have multiple chances to succeed and are given lots of feedback to help them reach their goals. The faculty member also pointed out that using specifications grading is another example of a non-competitive grading strategy as students are only graded on the work they choose to complete.
An engineering faculty member has made an effort to proactively host events that feature speakers of varied races, cultures, and identities in order to show students who make up this particular field of study.
Another faculty member stressed the importance of using live captions and how beneficial they are to students and how much students appreciate them.

Towards the end, there were a few questions from the audience:

Q: Regarding growth mindset, what exactly do you say to students?

A: Fleming responded that she tells her students everyone can be successful with whatever task they are working on, that practice is important, and failure is ok. Some students feel that if they don’t succeed quickly, they are a failure and may lose motivation to persist on difficult topics. She described how she explains the process to students like a journey – you will get to a better place than you are now and you will become more confident with time and practice. Fleming gives her students lots of encouragement throughout the semester.

Reese added that he consistently provides feedback to students throughout the semester and continually shows them examples of their success.

Q: What about students’ own biases? This comes up in teaching evaluations.

A: Fleming explained how she includes a discussion about implicit bias with her students at the beginning of the semester. She tries to make her class a positive, inclusive environment and asks that students do the same by honoring and respecting others’ opinions. She also discusses stereotypes of scientists and asks students not to evaluate her in that way.

Q: I find that most of the time, female students do not speak up. What can we do about this?

A: Reese responded that if working in groups, a best practice is to ensure no group contains a minority of underrepresented minorities. For example, with groups of 3 there should be 0,2, or 3 woman in each group. He also suggested giving students multiple ways to participate, such as sharing questions through different modalities (email, chat, raising their hand to comment).

Q: Can we expand the time on assessments to accommodate everyone?

A: Reese replied yes, giving everyone more time will lower the pressure for everyone on that assessment. However, there are rules that still need to be followed. Reese suggested working with Student Disability Services if there are specific questions about accommodating students. Another option would be to allow students an alternative to a timed assessment.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image Source: Lunch and Learn Logo, Pixabay

Lunch and Learn: Working with Teaching Assistants

Posted on March 2, 2021 by abrusini

On December 16, 2020, the Center for Educational Resources (CER) hosted a Lunch and Learn: Working with Teaching Assistants (TAs). Rebecca Pearlman, Senior Lecturer in Biology, and Reid Mumford, Instructional Resource Advisor in Physics and Astronomy, shared strategies for how to best work with TAs to support student learning. Mike Reese from the CER moderated the discussion.

Pearlman manages a mix of graduate and undergraduate level TAs in the Biology department each semester and has worked with hundreds of TAs during her career at Hopkins. Mumford manages approximately 30 graduate level TAs each semester as well as a group of undergraduate learning assistants who help with classroom tasks but do not take part in grading. The following is a combined list of strategies that the presenters shared during the presentation:

Set clear expectations – This could include a contract, job overview, checklist of duties, etc.
Provide tips for TAs so they are prepared for the semester – This may include training documents, resources, and tools they will need.
Take advantage of technology – Google Forms for identifying availability, Doodle polls for arranging meetings, Blackboard site to store answer keys, Slack/MS Teams to communicate among the instructional team.
Build community – Take an interest in the TAs and get to know them. This helps to establish positive relationships between the instructor and TAs and among the TAs themselves.
Meet weekly – Review upcoming course content, monitor progress of each section, ensure TAs understand their upcoming tasks. Mumford also uses his weekly meetings to provide feedback and encouragement to the TAs.
Designate a head TA, if possible – If you have a large number of TAs, it may be beneficial to designate a head TA to help you manage the rest of the group. With his large number of TAs each semester, Mumford relies heavily on his head TA to make sure weekly instructions and tasks are assigned appropriately.
Consider feedback from students – TA evaluations can offer helpful feedback to both TAs and instructors. Pearlman noted that student feedback is especially helpful if she needs to make decisions about rehiring a TA. She can pull quotes directly from the evaluations. Mumford noted that he always meets individually with each of his TAs to review their evaluations.

There were some questions from other faculty members after the presentation:

Q: To what extent do you use undergraduate TAs?

A: Mumford responded that by policy, all of the TAs in his department are graduate students. He went on to say that he finds that experienced TAs are valuable, but it is harder to change their behavior. If they are first year TAs, he has more of an opportunity to shape them. He does hire undergraduate learning assistants who assist with day to day tasks in the classroom but do not take part in any grading.

Pearlman stated that it seems to vary by department, but in biology, they have a mix of graduate and undgraduate TAs, and all of them participate in grading. She enjoys working with both populations, noting that the undergraduates tend to be self-starters, while the graduates bring a wealth of knowledge from the lab.

Q: To what extent is it useful for TAs to TA twice?

A: Pearlman responded that the undergraduate TAs often stay with her for years. They help each other and learn a lot by continuing in the role. They enjoy teaching the material more than once.

Q: How do you select your TAs?

A: Pearlman replied that the graduate level TAs are assigned to her department, but the undergraduates apply for the position. In the Fall 2020 semester she had 50 students apply for 18 positions. She uses a Google Form to ask them questions such as “why are you excited to be a TA? – or “what can you bring to the position?” Pearlman says she does review their grades, but they are not necessarily a priority; it often comes down to who is available at the right time.

Mumford responded that graduate TAs are assigned, but for the undergraduate learning assistants, he relies on referrals from the graduate TAs. He specifically asks them to recommend great students. He then follows up with an interview process. Mumford is able to choose his head TA and strongly considers diversity when choosing this person.

Other faculty shared various characteristics that they use to select TAs: enthusiasm for the subject matter, respect for others, patience with students, familiarity with course material, interest in teaching, and above average grades.

Q: What can I do about TAs who do not prioritize their TA duties, such as grading?

A: Reese suggested making expectations very clear but acknowledged that it is a struggle when the TAs have obligations to research faculty as well as their TA duties.

Mumford responded that he checks in with his TAs every week to try and keep them on task. If they are non-responsive, he escalates the issue to the graduate committee to handle. If it continues, he will also reach out to the student’s research advisor and discuss the situation with that person as well.

Pearlman suggested contacting the people who run the graduate program or the department chair for assistance. She also suggested bringing the issue up at a faculty meeting.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image Source: Lunch and Learn Logo, Pixabay

Teaching Online: What Have We Learned?

Posted on October 28, 2020 by abrusini

On Friday, October 9, the Center for Educational Resources (CER) hosted an online session, “Teaching Online: What Have We Learned?” where faculty were able to share and discuss best practices based on their experiences teaching online. Mike Reese, director of the CER and faculty member in Sociology, and Allon Brann, teaching support specialist at the CER, moderated the discussion, structuring it with a few guiding questions as outlined below:

What is something you are doing differently this semester online that you will continue to do when you are back in the classroom?

Jamie Young from Chemistry described how he is using tools such as MS Teams and Slack to build classroom community. He anticipated students feeling isolated in an online environment, so he set up spaces for casual conversation for them to communicate and get to know one another. He said it has definitely encouraged and increased conversation among students. When asked how he motivates students to participate in these environments, Young responded that he made their participation a very small part of their grade. Young and his TAs make it a point to respond right away when students post to these spaces so that students know this is an active space and that they are being heard. This level of responsiveness has also helped boost participation. Back in the classroom, Young plans to continue using these tools for informal office hours.

Rachel Sangree from Civil and Systems Engineering shared that she has been holding evening office hours and what a difference it has made in the number of students who attend. Acknowledging that it is sometimes exhausting, she stated that she sees more students now than ever before. When we’re back in the classroom, Sangree plans to continue to hold evening office hours, but perhaps not quite as late as she offers currently.

Alison Papadakis from Psychological and Brain Sciences described how she has adapted the “think pair share” active learning strategy to an online environment. Students are split into groups and assigned breakout rooms in Zoom, then use Google Sheets to record their ideas and notes while they’re in the rooms. This allows Papadakis to monitor the progress of students without having to manually drop in to each of the rooms. She is also able to add her own comments directly to the sheets in real time as students work on them. It was noted that separate tabs are created for each group in Google Sheets, so each group has its own space to work. Initially Papadakis was concerned that students would feel like she was ‘spying’ on them and wouldn’t like this method, but so far the feedback has been positive. Jamie Young shared a tutorial he put together on this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvRB38GHIKNaxQL-dN-9vpWgC43Yslssyz_jh2uPtno/edit

Francois Furstenberg from History shared how he is using the e-reader platform Perusall which allows students to collaboratively annotate their online readings. The annotations inform Furstenberg what parts of the readings students are finding interesting and are helping to shape the in-class discussions. He plans to continue using this platform when in-person classes resume. It was noted that instructors need to have copyright permission before uploading reading material to Perusall. If they have questions about obtaining copyright, they are encouraged to contact their university librarian.

David Kraemer from Mechanical Engineering mentioned that he mailed USB oscilloscope boards and a kit of devices to each of his students so they could perform “hands-on” experiments at home. He recognizes the value of these kits whether or not students are learning online, and plans to keep using them when in person classes resume.

Joshua Reiter from the Center for Leadership Education described how he adjusted his approach to assessments by breaking up large exams into more frequent quizzes throughout the semester. Some of these quizzes were meant to be ‘fun’ quizzes for participation points, but he noticed that students were feeling pressured when taking them, defeating their purpose. Reiter changed them from individual to group quizzes, using the breakout room feature in Zoom. Since then, he’s noticed a significant reduction in stress among the students.

What is something that you are still struggling with?

Several faculty members mentioned that their workload is significantly higher this semester as they do their best to recreate their lessons online. Some feel like they are putting in three times the normal amount of preparation time and as a result, are experiencing technological overload, having to learn and keep up with so many tools. Many faculty mentioned that their students are feeling this way, too. It was suggested that adding technology should be done in a purposeful way and that faculty should not feel compelled to use all of the available tools. Some faculty acknowledged that although it has been very challenging, they have learned a great deal about tools that are out there, and which ones seem to work better for students.

Similarly, a faculty member mentioned how difficult it is to multitask within the online environment; for example, keeping up with the chat window in Zoom while lecturing synchronously. Many faculty agreed, commenting that they feel pressured to keep up with everything going on and that it often feels like a performance. Someone commented that sharing concerns with the students helps to humanize the situation, while setting realistic expectations helps to take pressure off of instructors. One instructor mentioned how he purposely builds pauses into his lectures to allow himself time to catch up. Others mentioned that they use their TAs to monitor the chat window; if the instructor does not have a TA, he or she could ask a student. Another general suggestion is to ask students what works best for them, instead of trying to monitor everything.

Academic integrity was another issue that came up. At least one instructor acknowledged multiple instances of students cheating since moving online, while others shared that they are concerned it may happen to them. A brief discussion followed, with instructors sharing strategies they use to try and mitigate cheating: using online monitoring tools, lowering weights of exams, making all exams open-book/open-note, and placing more emphasis on project-based work.

Some technical questions also came up, such as how to recreate an interactive whiteboard. The responses ranged from configuring Powerpoint in a certain way to using multiple devices. Jamie Young shared a tutorial he put together that uses Open Broadcaster Software (OBS): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXptPGjnAOiqbpvrXJPGWDcbqE_l95C6Cm0moYpaelk/edit?usp=sharing Faculty are welcome to contact the CER for help with this and other specific technological challenges.

Anything you would like to share with others?

A few faculty members shared how they are taking advantage of the online environment. Andrew Cherlin from Sociology mentioned how much easier it is to schedule outside guests, such as authors, since there are no travel arrangements, logistics, etc. to be worked out. He has had several guests this semester already. Cherlin also described how he has taken advantage of Zoom to meet with each student individually for about fifteen minutes to check in with them and make sure they are on track. He acknowledged that this is not practical for large courses, but it has been very beneficial to those in his seminar style course.

Lori Finkelstein from Museum Studies described how being online has reshaped her assignments. She usually has students go out into the field to different museums to conduct research. This semester, students are taking a look at what museums are offering virtually and whether or not they are successful, what seems to be working, what is not working, etc.

Lester Spence from Political Science is teaching a course with instructors from Goucher College and Towson University. Students from all three schools are collaborating together as they work on group projects, something that would not necessarily be possible in a face-to-face environment.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image Source: Pixabay

The Innovative Instructor

Pedagogy – Best Practices – Technology

Tag Archives: Mike Reese

Community Conversation: Facilitating Difficult Conversations in the Classroom

Lunch and Learn: Generative AI – Teaching Uses, Learning Curves, and Classroom Guidelines

Facilitating Difficult Conversations during Class

ChatGPT: A Brief Introduction and Considerations for Academic Integrity

A Faculty Follow-up Discussion: Re-engaging Students for the Fall Semester

Faculty Discussion: Re-engaging Students for the Fall Semester

Lunch and Learn: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

Lunch and Learn: Inclusive Pedagogy

Lunch and Learn: Working with Teaching Assistants

Teaching Online: What Have We Learned?