In Greenwood 50, our story began with a challenge shared by many districts: too many tools, not enough connection. With more than 8,000 students across 15 schools, our family engagement efforts felt more fractured than unified.
Each school–and often each classroom–had its own way of communicating. Some used social media, others sent home printed newsletters. Many teachers used a host of apps on their own, often with great results. But without a common system, we couldn’t guarantee that every family, especially those with multiple kids or multilingual needs, felt fully informed and included.
What we needed wasn’t more effort. It was alignment. So, we started with a simple idea: build on what was already working.
Starting with teacher momentum
When we looked closer, we found something powerful: Six of our eight elementary schools had already adopted ClassDojo–without being asked. Teachers liked its ease of use. Families liked the mobile experience and automatic translation. And everyone appreciated that it made communication feel more human.
Rather than rolling out something new, we decided to meet that momentum with support. As district leaders, we partnered across departments to unify all 15 schools using ClassDojo for Districts. Our goal was clear: one platform, one message, every family engaged.
We knew that trust isn’t built through mandates. It’s built through listening. So, our rollout respected the work our teachers were already doing well. Instead of creating a top-down plan, we focused on making it easier for schools to connect–and for families to stay informed.
From tech challenge to time saved
One of the first things we did was connect our student information system directly to the platform. That meant class rosters synced automatically. Teachers didn’t need to manually invite families or set things up from scratch.
For school leaders, this was a game-changer. As a former principal, I (Debbie) remember the long hours spent setting up communication tools each year. Now, it just happens. Teachers log in, their classes are ready, and families are connected from day one.
This consistency has helped every school level up its communication. From classroom stories to urgent messages, everything happens in one place. And when families know where to look, they’re more likely to stay engaged.
Reaching more families, building stronger partnerships
Before our rollout, some schools reached just 60 percent of families. Today, many are well over 90 percent. My school (Anna) has reached 96 percent–and the difference shows. Families aren’t just receiving updates. They’re reading, replying, and showing up.
Because the communications platform includes real-time translation, our multilingual families feel more included. We’ve had smoother parent conferences, better attendance at events, and more everyday connection. When a family can read a teacher’s message in their home language–and write back–that builds a sense of partnership.
As a principal, I use our school’s page to post reminders, spotlight students, and share what’s happening in related arts, music, and physical education. It’s become our school’s storytelling platform. Families appreciate it–and they respond.
Respecting time, creating alignment
The platform’s built-in features have also helped us be more thoughtful. Teachers can schedule messages, avoiding late-night pings. District and school leaders can coordinate messaging so that what families receive feels seamless.
This visibility has been key. Our communications team can see what’s being shared, school teams can collaborate, and everyone is rowing in the same direction. It’s not about controlling the message–it’s about creating clarity.
Lessons for other districts
If we’ve learned one thing, it’s this: Start with what’s working. Our most important decision wasn’t what tool to use–it was listening to our teachers and supporting the systems they were already finding success with.
This wasn’t just a platform change. It was a mindset shift. We didn’t need to convince them to use something new. We just needed to remove barriers, support their efforts, and make it easier to connect with families districtwide.
That shift–from fragmented to unified, from siloed to shared–has made all the difference in reaching new levels of accessibility and engagement.
Johnathan Graves, Debbie Leonard, & Anna Haynes, Greenwood 50 School District
Johnathan Graves is the Executive Director of Communications; Debbie Leonard serves as the Executive Director of Technology; and Anna Haynes is the Principal at Eleanor S. Rice Elementary School in Greenwood 50 School District.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
A group of 38 nurses, seven Lego building block kits, and 45 minutes was all our nursing professional development team needed to improve staff communication and patient safety. Game-based learning (GBL) via Lego® building is a well-received training modality with a review of literature showing the potential to increase teamwork, communication, and comprehension (Warburton et al., 2022).
Lego® Serious Play®, a specific form of GBL, is a “facilitated, communication and problem-solving teaching technique using Lego® building blocks to use the concept of ‘hand knowledge’ to teach cognitive concepts” (Lego®, 2025). GBL is a frequent training modality our nurse education department uses for the quarterly skills day. Our quarterly skills days are training days dedicated to vital training requirements. We have used escape rooms, team Jeopardy, and role-plays, but our staff asked for something different. Our team held a brainstorming session, during which we decided to utilize Legos® to teach triage and communication skills.
The Idea for Lego® GBL
The idea for Lego® GBL in our facility was based on a critical incident tabletop exercise attended by nursing residents. Our nurse residents needed to complete and experience a mass casualty incident triage, but we were unable to involve them in the actual training exercise. I considered recreating the critical incident using a Lego® hospital and emergency department model. We used Lego® minifigures as our key players and victims: we had an ambulance, a stretcher, and an overturned truck.
The use of Lego® GBL learning addresses key elements of communication required for highly functioning teams.
Staff Engagement. The training energized the staff, prompting them to run the scenario multiple times.
Team Effort. The physical nature of the building blocks fosters a strong working environment that revolves around a shared mental model.
Critical thinking. The team makes key decisions on triage using limited information, following the triage guidelines, and relying on clear communication.
Lego® GBL and Communication Training
Our team was seeking an innovative approach to teaching communication skills beyond a traditional code team exercise. I instantly thought back to how successful the Lego® critical incident tabletop exercise went and told the team we should consider using this for all our learners.
I then conducted research and found three articles outlining how to create an educational exercise and its proven efficacy (Bethel et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023; Warburton et al., 2022). We began our design by creating a timed building scenario that involved 13 bricks and eight distractor bricks, which are not required to complete the build. We then decided we wanted to have three distinct roles in our building team:
Staff Nurse or Builder. This person was the only person who could see the build and touch the Lego® building blocks. The builder was behind a blinder and could not see the written instructions from their team members. The builder can only create the build based on verbal instructions from the runner.
Relief Nurse or Runner: This person was responsible for verbal communication between the staff and charge nurses. They could not see the build instructions or the build itself, and they could not physically interact with the Lego® build.
Charge Nurse or Diagram Holder: This person was responsible for being the only person who could see the build instructions. They passed on the verbal instructions to the runner. The charge nurse was behind a blind and cannot leave their workstation.
Projected Outcomes of Training
In developing this opportunity, I initially thought of what our outcomes would be. First, I wanted the learners to be engaged and to have data to support the need for future training. Second, I wanted the teams to verbalize that they improved communication in their teams. Third, I aimed to teach the principles of High Reliability Organization (HRO) communication to enhance patient safety. Finally, I briefly touched on the importance of rapid process improvement and the use of standardization documents (Standard Work and Standard Operating Procedures) to make work more consistent and safe.
Build Time: Everything is Awesome!
Our team facilitated the training, consisting of seven skills days, with an average of 15-24 participants per group. We introduced the guidelines for the activity and divided the teams into three groups. After the initial build, we conducted debriefings and reviewed the builds. All the builds were within 50% accuracy of the template, and no team finished before the five-minute time limit.
Next, I provided a brief 15-minute learning on (1) communication theory, (2) running a rapid process improvement, and (3) teamwork building. The teams had five minutes to do a team huddle. The purpose of the team huddle is to communicate a shared mental model of a task to ensure all members of the team have understanding. They identified that they wanted to make changes: (1) removing the blinders, (2) providing all team members with the build instructions, and (3) allowing all team members to touch the Legos®. The team employed more effective communication techniques during the second build. All teams utilized the 3 Cs of high-quality communication (clear, concise, and complete). Most teams finished within two minutes, with all teams achieving 100% accuracy with the template model.
Next Steps in Facility Lego® GBL
I plan to present this project to our nursing evidence-based council for further review and consideration. In the meantime, five additional units have requested this training by word-of-mouth advertising. In response to these requests, I have revised the instructions so that I could train other facilitators to run a 45-minute session. Our HRO and quality staff have expressed interest in formalizing this as part of our Pathway to Excellence drive.
Conclusion
Educators can use block learning as a tactile approach for learners to witness the outcomes of their “soft skills” training, which focuses on communication and teamwork. Lego® GBL provides a fun, engaging, and novel way for healthcare workers to experience competency training. Lego® GBL and Lego® Serious Play® offer ways for teams to interact in a manner that reduces stress by removing the high stakes of traditional simulation-based education.
Michael Brakel, RN-BC, is a Registered Nurse (RN) serving with the Veterans Affairs-Northern California Health Care System (VA-NCHCS) as a Nurse Educator. He has worked with the VA-NCHCS in various capacities, including Utilization Management RN, Utilization Review RN, Community Care RN, Affiliate Professor, and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) RN Care Coordinator. Additionally, he has worked as a Nurse Consultant with the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), serving as a hotline team member and team lead. Mr. Brakel holds advanced degrees in management and psychology. He graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in nursing. Mike is certified in Managed Care Nursing, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing, Nursing Professional Development, and Nursing Case Management. He holds certifications as a Certified Professional of Patient Safety and a Certified Professional in Healthcare Quality in addition to his nursing credentials. Resilience, compassion fatigue, nurse retention, and the application of measurement-based screening in mental health care are his main research topics. Before coming to the VA, Mr. Brakel retired after 25 years in the United States Air Force Nursing Corps, specializing in Behavioral Health. Mike served as a nurse, charge nurse, and education specialist serving on inpatient units at Travis Air Force Base, California, and the San Antonio Military Medical Center. His last roles in the Air Force were serving as the Air Force lead Mental Health Nursing Educator and as the Deputy to the Air Force Consultant to the Surgeon General for Mental Health Nursing.
Dr. Julia VanderMolen is a Professor for the Public Health program at Grand Valley State University and a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor with the University of the Pacific, School of Health Sciences. Her research examines the benefits of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities in public health. She serves as a board member of the Disability Advocates of Kent County and is an active member of the Disability Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Her current research focuses on exploring the health and medical services available to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
References
Bethel, E. C., Marchetti, K. A., Hecklinski, T. M., Daignault-Newton, M. S., Kraft, K. H., Hamilton, B. D., Faerber, G. J., & Ambani, S. N. (2021). The LEGO™ exercise: An assessment of core competencies in urology residency interviews. Journal of Surgical Education, 78(6), 2063-2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.011
Lambert, N. J., Luo, X., & Ola, A. (2023). Knowing me, knowing you: Self-reflection and understanding diversity for effective teamwork Lego® building activity. Management Teaching Review, 10(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981231190589
Warburton, T., Brown, J., & Sandars, J. (2022). The use of Lego® Serious Play® within nurse education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 188(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105528
A group of 38 nurses, seven Lego building block kits, and 45 minutes was all our nursing professional development team needed to improve staff communication and patient safety. Game-based learning (GBL) via Lego® building is a well-received training modality with a review of literature showing the potential to increase teamwork, communication, and comprehension (Warburton et al., 2022).
Lego® Serious Play®, a specific form of GBL, is a “facilitated, communication and problem-solving teaching technique using Lego® building blocks to use the concept of ‘hand knowledge’ to teach cognitive concepts” (Lego®, 2025). GBL is a frequent training modality our nurse education department uses for the quarterly skills day. Our quarterly skills days are training days dedicated to vital training requirements. We have used escape rooms, team Jeopardy, and role-plays, but our staff asked for something different. Our team held a brainstorming session, during which we decided to utilize Legos® to teach triage and communication skills.
The Idea for Lego® GBL
The idea for Lego® GBL in our facility was based on a critical incident tabletop exercise attended by nursing residents. Our nurse residents needed to complete and experience a mass casualty incident triage, but we were unable to involve them in the actual training exercise. I considered recreating the critical incident using a Lego® hospital and emergency department model. We used Lego® minifigures as our key players and victims: we had an ambulance, a stretcher, and an overturned truck.
The use of Lego® GBL learning addresses key elements of communication required for highly functioning teams.
Staff Engagement. The training energized the staff, prompting them to run the scenario multiple times.
Team Effort. The physical nature of the building blocks fosters a strong working environment that revolves around a shared mental model.
Critical thinking. The team makes key decisions on triage using limited information, following the triage guidelines, and relying on clear communication.
Lego® GBL and Communication Training
Our team was seeking an innovative approach to teaching communication skills beyond a traditional code team exercise. I instantly thought back to how successful the Lego® critical incident tabletop exercise went and told the team we should consider using this for all our learners.
I then conducted research and found three articles outlining how to create an educational exercise and its proven efficacy (Bethel et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023; Warburton et al., 2022). We began our design by creating a timed building scenario that involved 13 bricks and eight distractor bricks, which are not required to complete the build. We then decided we wanted to have three distinct roles in our building team:
Staff Nurse or Builder. This person was the only person who could see the build and touch the Lego® building blocks. The builder was behind a blinder and could not see the written instructions from their team members. The builder can only create the build based on verbal instructions from the runner.
Relief Nurse or Runner: This person was responsible for verbal communication between the staff and charge nurses. They could not see the build instructions or the build itself, and they could not physically interact with the Lego® build.
Charge Nurse or Diagram Holder: This person was responsible for being the only person who could see the build instructions. They passed on the verbal instructions to the runner. The charge nurse was behind a blind and cannot leave their workstation.
Projected Outcomes of Training
In developing this opportunity, I initially thought of what our outcomes would be. First, I wanted the learners to be engaged and to have data to support the need for future training. Second, I wanted the teams to verbalize that they improved communication in their teams. Third, I aimed to teach the principles of High Reliability Organization (HRO) communication to enhance patient safety. Finally, I briefly touched on the importance of rapid process improvement and the use of standardization documents (Standard Work and Standard Operating Procedures) to make work more consistent and safe.
Build Time: Everything is Awesome!
Our team facilitated the training, consisting of seven skills days, with an average of 15-24 participants per group. We introduced the guidelines for the activity and divided the teams into three groups. After the initial build, we conducted debriefings and reviewed the builds. All the builds were within 50% accuracy of the template, and no team finished before the five-minute time limit.
Next, I provided a brief 15-minute learning on (1) communication theory, (2) running a rapid process improvement, and (3) teamwork building. The teams had five minutes to do a team huddle. The purpose of the team huddle is to communicate a shared mental model of a task to ensure all members of the team have understanding. They identified that they wanted to make changes: (1) removing the blinders, (2) providing all team members with the build instructions, and (3) allowing all team members to touch the Legos®. The team employed more effective communication techniques during the second build. All teams utilized the 3 Cs of high-quality communication (clear, concise, and complete). Most teams finished within two minutes, with all teams achieving 100% accuracy with the template model.
Next Steps in Facility Lego® GBL
I plan to present this project to our nursing evidence-based council for further review and consideration. In the meantime, five additional units have requested this training by word-of-mouth advertising. In response to these requests, I have revised the instructions so that I could train other facilitators to run a 45-minute session. Our HRO and quality staff have expressed interest in formalizing this as part of our Pathway to Excellence drive.
Conclusion
Educators can use block learning as a tactile approach for learners to witness the outcomes of their “soft skills” training, which focuses on communication and teamwork. Lego® GBL provides a fun, engaging, and novel way for healthcare workers to experience competency training. Lego® GBL and Lego® Serious Play® offer ways for teams to interact in a manner that reduces stress by removing the high stakes of traditional simulation-based education.
Michael Brakel, RN-BC, is a Registered Nurse (RN) serving with the Veterans Affairs-Northern California Health Care System (VA-NCHCS) as a Nurse Educator. He has worked with the VA-NCHCS in various capacities, including Utilization Management RN, Utilization Review RN, Community Care RN, Affiliate Professor, and Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) RN Care Coordinator. Additionally, he has worked as a Nurse Consultant with the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), serving as a hotline team member and team lead. Mr. Brakel holds advanced degrees in management and psychology. He graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in nursing. Mike is certified in Managed Care Nursing, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing, Nursing Professional Development, and Nursing Case Management. He holds certifications as a Certified Professional of Patient Safety and a Certified Professional in Healthcare Quality in addition to his nursing credentials. Resilience, compassion fatigue, nurse retention, and the application of measurement-based screening in mental health care are his main research topics. Before coming to the VA, Mr. Brakel retired after 25 years in the United States Air Force Nursing Corps, specializing in Behavioral Health. Mike served as a nurse, charge nurse, and education specialist serving on inpatient units at Travis Air Force Base, California, and the San Antonio Military Medical Center. His last roles in the Air Force were serving as the Air Force lead Mental Health Nursing Educator and as the Deputy to the Air Force Consultant to the Surgeon General for Mental Health Nursing.
Dr. Julia VanderMolen is a Professor for the Public Health program at Grand Valley State University and a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor with the University of the Pacific, School of Health Sciences. Her research examines the benefits of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities in public health. She serves as a board member of the Disability Advocates of Kent County and is an active member of the Disability Section of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Her current research focuses on exploring the health and medical services available to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
References
Bethel, E. C., Marchetti, K. A., Hecklinski, T. M., Daignault-Newton, M. S., Kraft, K. H., Hamilton, B. D., Faerber, G. J., & Ambani, S. N. (2021). The LEGO™ exercise: An assessment of core competencies in urology residency interviews. Journal of Surgical Education, 78(6), 2063-2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.05.011
Lambert, N. J., Luo, X., & Ola, A. (2023). Knowing me, knowing you: Self-reflection and understanding diversity for effective teamwork Lego® building activity. Management Teaching Review, 10(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981231190589
Warburton, T., Brown, J., & Sandars, J. (2022). The use of Lego® Serious Play® within nurse education: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 188(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105528
Interpersonal communication theories not only help students navigate personal and professional relationships but also strengthen teacher-student connections. Drawing on Orón (2018) and Orón Semper & Blasco (2018), we encourage instructors to use this one-day activity to shift from a “student-centered” to an “interpersonal relationship-centered” pedagogy. This approach views instructor-student relationships as essential to learning and as a space for students to apply theory with relational intent. The activity promotes self-reflexivity, theory analysis, and collaborative dialogue, resulting in improved theory comprehension, stronger rapport, and communication practices that respect classroom diversity.
Student and instructor diversity in higher education has grown significantly in recent years (Li & Koedel, 2017), with over a million international students enrolled in U.S. universities (Urban, 2016). This diversity—across culture, gender, race, ability, and socioeconomic status—shapes classroom dynamics and presents unique challenges related to language, identity, and cultural differences (Jones et al., 2021). Instructors must respond by creating inclusive learning environments that support all students (Downing & Billotte Verhoff, 2023). Diversity also presents an opportunity to apply communication theories to foster intercultural empathy and improve collaboration. Students may initially struggle to understand and respect differing perspectives, affecting group work and engagement (Gray et al., 2020), but these challenges can become learning opportunities that deepen classroom inclusivity.
Communication scholars often apply interpersonal communication theories in the classroom to strengthen student–teacher relationships (Xie & Derakhshan, 2021). This single class activity integrates uncertainty management, self-disclosure, and communication accommodation theory (CAT) for undergraduate students to (a) to understand and (b) apply these theories to facilitate an inclusive and self-reflexive classroom. Teachers are the leading actors during everyday interaction and play a significant role in shaping communication and enhancing the teaching and learning process (Almas Rizkika Nabila, 2020). This activity encourages students to actively co-create a meaningful learning experience, highlighting the reciprocal nature of classroom interaction (Anyichie & Butler, 2023; Kong, 2021).
Self-disclosure: Communication Privacy Management
Self-disclosure is “any conversation about the self that a person communicates to others” (Ampong et al., 2018). Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory helps students understand how they set and manage privacy boundaries with peers and instructors (Petronio et al., 2021). The intersection of privacy boundaries and the learning space is complicated as students and instructors navigate privacy. Instructors deliver the lecture and explain the course content, but they also intentionally and willingly share their personal stories (Liu & Zhu, 2021). For instance, the first author, an international graduate assistant, connects class discussions to experiences from his home country, helping students relate and engage. Such instructor self-disclosure encourages student participation and fosters more meaningful classroom communication (Goldstein, 1994) (Liu & Zhu, 2021).
However, instructors and students rarely critically examine the disclosure norms in the classroom and their role in learning and relationship building. For example, disclosure boundaries (i.e., how far instructors can go to share their experiences) (Cayanus, 2004). Additionally, while students may attend to how much information they share in the classroom, this activity challenges them to apply CPM theory to examine their disclosure practices, expectations, and privacy boundary negotiations.
Communication Accommodation Theory
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) explains how individuals adjust their communication such as speech, tone, pace, gestures, or body language—to interact effectively with others. Instructors can use CAT to enhance student understanding during lectures (Howard Giles, 2023).The theory outlines two key strategies: convergence, where a speaker adapts to another’s communication style (e.g., simplifying vocabulary, repeating phrases, pausing, smiling, nodding), and divergence, where a speaker maintains differences by avoiding shared cues (e.g., using complex words, changing topics, or not adjusting speaking pace) (Marko Dragojevic, 2016) (Pardo et al., 2022).
Drawing on this research, the goal of this activity is 1) to understand the theories and analyze how they facilitate the teaching process, 2) to explore the perceptions of students about these theories and their inclusion in the classroom, 3) to determine the expectations of students related to characteristics of these theories.
The Activity
This single-class activity applies to various undergraduate courses, such as public speaking, communication among cultures, communication in interpersonal relationships, argument analysis and advocacy, and persuasion. Instructors can do this activity during introduction week as they begin navigating disclosures about themselves and student expectations. Moreover, planning this activity at the beginning will challenge students to examine their positionalities, norms, and expectations critically.
Step 1: Personal Reflection
Before implementing the activity, instructors should familiarize themselves with relevant communication theories and reflect on how their own identities shape their teaching assumptions (Nabila, 2020, Downing & Billotte Verhoff, 2023). We recommend engaging in self-reflexive questions, such as: What disclosure boundaries do I set and why? What uncertainties do I face around privacy or accommodation in teaching? What expectations exist between me and my students regarding communication and flexibility? Instructors should identify what personal information they’re willing to share, why they’re sharing it, and how it might impact classroom relationships. For example, the first author reflected on cultural and linguistic differences and adjusted his teaching by using simpler language, acknowledging English is not his first language, and setting shared guidelines to support mutual understanding and accommodation. This reflective process helps align instructional practices with inclusive, theory-informed pedagogy.
Step 2: Students’ Perceptions About Components of Theories
This activity takes approximately 30 to 40 minutes and is best suited for a full class session. Instructors should introduce the key theories with examples and explain the activity’s purpose and timing. For advanced courses, assigning theory readings beforehand can deepen analysis, making it more effective to conduct the activity later in the semester rather than at the start. During the session, students should be divided into groups of four and asked to write their expectations for the course and the instructor. To guide discussion, instructors can pose prompts such as:
What expectations do you have for your instructor when it comes to using different communication accommodation strategies?
How do you manage your own self-disclosure in the classroom? Where do you draw the line on what you choose to share?
What are your thoughts on instructors’ self-disclosure? What types of disclosures have a positive or negative impact on your learning experience?
How comfortable are you with classroom communication? What strategies could reduce uncertainty or discomfort?
How do you plan to engage with and accommodate diversity in terms of culture, race, gender identity, and sexual orientation in your classroom interactions?
Can you connect your responses to the core ideas of the communication theories we’ve discussed? How do these theories help explain disclosure and accommodation in the classroom context?
These questions will provide space for students to reflect on their experiences. Moreover, during that time, the instructor will also answer these questions from the instructor’s perspective and enlist the convergence techniques they perceive to accommodate. Instructors can give 15 to 20 minutes to answer the provided questions briefly.
Step 3: Describing the Theories and Their Impact
Instructors will invite each group to share their responses, followed by the instructor’s own disclosure of planned strategies—such as accommodation, anticipated uncertainties, and boundaries around self-disclosure. A comparison table with two columns (students vs. instructor) can be used to visually display both perspectives. Instructors then lead a discussion with prompts like: Why do these expectations exist? What differences or overlaps emerge? How do these perspectives interact? This activity encourages students to (a) practice perspective-taking shaped by diverse identities, (b) apply key concepts like co-creating privacy boundaries (CPM), and (c) see how theory fosters a supportive learning environment. Since student familiarity with these theories may vary, instructors should first assess their basic understanding.
Debriefing
At the end of the activity on the same day. Instructors can initiate the debriefing by including the Q&A sessions such as:
How did this activity impact, how you view self-disclosure and accommodation?
What do you understand about embedding these theories in the classroom?
How can this activity help to build a good student-teacher relationship and create an inclusive environment in the classroom?
Appraisal
In the second week, I (the first author) compiled all responses into a table and presented it to the class. I briefly discussed both student and instructor perspectives, then posted reflection prompts on Blackboard for feedback. Students responded positively, noting that the activity was enjoyable and helped them get to know one another. Many emphasized the importance of communication accommodation, agreeing that in a diverse classroom, convergence strategies are essential for fostering inclusion and mutual respect. One student highlighted that accommodation is key to ensuring understanding and promoting respectful interaction (see Table 1).
Table 1: Responses of Students and Instructor
Communication Accommodation
Self-disclosure
Uncertainty
Students
-Speaking slower during a speech even when anxious** -Staying away from slang words to avoid language barriers -Clear annunciation -Respectful of each other’s speaking language** -Appropriate tone/voice -In class participation -Speaking clearly and loudly**** -Visual cue images if doing a speech. -Articulation -Be patient -Stay engaged -Ask him to repeat
-Disclose how comfortable you are speaking in front of a group, so the professor understands your anxiety or emotion towards speech presentation ** -Disclosing where you are from, what languages you, speak, and how much you understand a topic will be very important to critiquing your peers on their speeches -Safe space -No personal information**** -No social media -Should disclose important and relevant events that could affect quality -Establish boundaries
-Topics that peers choose to speak about throughout the semester may be understood less or more by others -How to write a speech -How we will be graded -How heavy the workload will be -Fear of asking questions -Ask for help when needed -Talking in front of people preparation -Speech topics (Range of issues) -Comfort -What is expected of us from the professor -Memorizing speeches -Deadlines -Clear instructions for assignments -Reminders of important dates -Remember to submit assignments -Nervous
Instructor
-Speak slowly -Use clear words -Allow students to ask questions -Repeat my words without asking -Take a break during lecture and ask students if they have any concern or not -Making good eye contact -Listen everyone carefully -Give everyone chance to speak
-If you are comfortable to share your personal information you can, we can make a rule that whatever you share in this class will stay in this class
-How do you feel when I show attendance sheet on BB -How do you feel about forgetting your name -What do you think when it takes time to respond to your email -How you think when you meet me outside of class at court street on weekends
One limitation of this activity is the time required to develop and implement it during the first week of the semester, making early planning essential. Second, the activity is best suited for small classes; in larger classrooms, it may be difficult to follow all steps without modification. Lastly, delayed feedback or response-sharing may reduce the activity’s impact, as students may forget key details over time.
Athar Memon, MBBS, MSPH, is a graduate student in the PhD program in the Scripps School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Athar Memon research interest is related to health communication specifically health care access, behaviors to access healthcare services among marginalized population, barriers related to patient-provider interpersonal communication, health literacy and its relationship with health outcomes and healthy behaviors. His work has been published in various journals including Professional Medical Journal, Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, Pakistan Journal of Public Health, PEC Innovation, and Eastern Mediterranean Journal.
China C. Billotte Verhoff, PhD, (Purdue University) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Dr. Billotte Verhoff’s research agenda lies at the intersections of interpersonal and organizational communication. Specifically, she explores how individuals with marginalized and stigmatized identities navigate self-disclosure and social support processes to identify the associated relational, career, and health outcomes. Dr. Billotte Verhoff’s work has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Communication Monographs, the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Communication Studies, Sex Roles, Women and Language, and Health Communication.
References
Almas Rizkika Nabila, A. M., Syafi’ul Anam. 2020. “TEACHER’S MOTIVES IN APPLYING COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION STRATEGIES IN SECONDARY ELT CLASS. Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal, 3(2), 373-384.”
Ampong, G. O. A., Mensah, A., Adu, A. S. Y, Addae, J. A., Omoregie, O. K., & Ofori, K. S. 2018. “Examining Self-Disclosure on Social Networking Sites: A Flow Theory and Privacy Perspective. Behav Sci (Basel), 8(6).”
Anyichie, A. C., & Butler, D. L.. 2023. Examining culturally diverse learners’ motivation and engagement processes as situated in the context of a complex task. Frontiers in Education,
Cayanus, J. L.. 2004. “Effective Instructional Practice: Using Teacher Self-Disclosure as an Instructional Tool. Communication Teacher, 18(1), 6-9.”
Downing, S. S., & Billotte Verhoff, C. C. 2023. “Incorporating mini lessons on the hidden curriculum in communication classrooms. Communication Teacher, 37(3), 246-253.”
Ewa Urban, L. B. P.. 2016. “International Students’ Perceptions of the Value of U.S. Higher Education Journal of International Students, 6(1), 153-174.”
Gray, D. L., McElveen, T. L., Green, B. P., & Bryant, L. H.. 2020. Engaging Black and Latinx students through communal learning opportunities: A relevance intervention for middle schoolers in STEM elective classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101833.
Howard Giles, A. L. E., Joseph B. Walther. 2023. Communication accommodation theory: Past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects.
Jones, B. D., Krost, K., & Jones, M. W.. 2021. Relationships between students’ course perceptions, effort, and achievement in an online course. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100051.
Kong, Y. 2021. The Role of Experiential Learning on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Engagement. Front Psychol, 12, 771272.
Li, D., & Koedel, C. 2017. “Representation and salary gaps by race-ethnicity and gender at selective public universities. Educational researcher, 46(7), 343-354.”
Liu, X., & Zhu, L. 2021. The Role of EFL Teachers’ Self-Disclosure as Predictors of Student’s Willingness to Communicate and Their Engagement. Front Psychol, 12, 748744.
Marko Dragojevic, J. G., Howard Giles. 2016. Accommodative Strategies as Core of the Theory. Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities across Contexts, 36-59.
Pardo, J. S., Pellegrino, E., Dellwo, V., & Möbius, B. 2022. Special issue: Vocal accommodation in speech communication. Journal of Phonetics, 95, 101196.
Petronio, S., Child, J. T., & Hall, R. D. 2021. Communication privacy management theory: Significance for interpersonal communication. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 314-327). Routledge.
Xie, F., & Derakhshan, A. 2021. A Conceptual Review of Positive Teacher Interpersonal Communication Behaviors in the Instructional Context. Front Psychol, 12, 708490.
Your job now requires a new level of transparency that you are reluctant to provide. This media crisis will burn for several more days if we sit silent. We are in a true leadership moment and I need you to listen to your communications expert. I can make your job easier and more successful.
Signed,
Your Communications Director
As superintendents come under more political fire and frequent negative news stories about their school districts circulate, it is easy to see where the instinct to not comment and just focus on the work might kick in. However, the path forward requires a new level of transparency and truth-telling in communications. In fact, the work requires you to get out in front so that your teachers and staff can focus on their work.
I recently spoke with a school district facing multiple PR crises. The superintendent was reluctant to address the issues publicly, preferring one-on-one meetings with parents over engaging with the media or holding town hall-style parent meetings. But when serious allegations of employee misconduct and the resulting community concerns arise, it’s crucial for superintendents to step forward and take control of the narrative.
While the details of ongoing human resources or police investigations cannot be discussed, it’s vital to inform the community about actions being taken to prevent future incidents, the safeguards being implemented, and your unwavering commitment to student and staff safety. All of that is far more reassuring than the media reporting, “The district was not available for comment,” “The district cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation,” or even worse, the dreaded, “The school district said it has no comment.”
Building trust with proactive communication
A district statement or email doesn’t carry the same weight as a media interview or an in-house video message sent directly to community members. True leadership means standing up and accepting the difficult interviews, answering the tough questions, and conveying with authentic emotion that these incidents are unacceptable. What a community needs to hear is the “why” behind a decision so that trust is built, even if that decision is to hold back on key information. A lack of public statement can be perceived as indifference or a leadership void, which can quickly threaten a superintendent’s career.
Superintendents should always engage with the media during true leadership moments, such as district-wide safety issues, school board meetings, or when the public needs reassurance. “Who Speaks For Your Brand?” looks at a survey of 1,600 school staff who resoundingly stated that the superintendent is the primary person responsible for promoting and defending a school district’s brand. A majority of the superintendents surveyed agreed as well. Promoting and defending the district’s brand includes the negative–but also the positive–opportunities like the first day of school, graduation, school and district grade releases, and district awards.
However, not every media request requires the superintendent’s direct involvement. If it doesn’t rise to the severity level worthy of the superintendent’s office, an interview with a department head or communications chief is a better option. The superintendent interview is reserved for the stories we decide require it, not just because a reporter asks for it. Reporters ask for you far more than your communications chief ever tells you.
It is essential to communicate directly and regularly with parents through video and email using your district’s mass communication tools. You control the message you want to deliver, and you don’t have to rely on the media getting it right. This is an amazing opportunity to humanize the office. Infuse your video scripts with more personality and emotion to connect on a personal level with your community. It is far harder to attack the person than the office. Proactive communications help build trust for when you need it later.
I have had superintendents tell me that they prefer to make their comments at school board meetings. School board meeting comments are often insufficient, as analytics often indicate low viewership for school board meeting live streams or recordings. In my experience, a message sent to parents through district alert channels far outperforms the YouTube views of school board meetings.
Humanizing the superintendent’s role
Superintendents should maintain a consistent communications presence via social media, newsletters, the website, and so on to demonstrate their engagement within schools. Short videos featuring interactions with staff and students create powerful engagement opportunities. Develop content to create touch points that celebrate the contributions of nurses, teachers, and bus drivers, especially on their national days of recognition. These proactive moments of engagement show the community that positive moments happen hourly, daily, and weekly within your schools.
If you are not comfortable posting your own content, have your communications team ghostwrite posts for you. You never want a community member asking, “What does the superintendent do all day? We never see them.” If you are posting content from all of the school visits and community meetings you attend, that accusation can never be made again. You now have social proof of your engagement efforts and evidence for your annual contract review.
Effective communication is a superintendent’s superpower. Those who can connect authentically and show their personality can truly shine. Many superintendents mistakenly believe that hard work alone will speak for itself, but in today’s politically charged landscape, a certain amount of “campaigning” is necessary while in office. We all know the job of the superintendent has never been harder, tenure has never been shorter, and the chance of being fired is higher than ever.
Embrace the opportunity to engage and showcase the great things happening in your district. It’s worth promoting positive and proactive communications so that you’re a seasoned pro when the challenging moments come. There might just be less of them if you get ahead.
Greg Turchetta, Apptegy
Greg Turchetta is the Strategic Communications Advisor at Apptegy and was the Senior Chief Communications Officer for the Richland School District in Columbia, South Carolina.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Reality TV star Ciara Miller, also a traveling ICU nurse, discusses how honest communication, supportive colleagues, and personal routines can help nurses manage burnout.
What does the word “strength” mean to you when you think of nurses?
Strength, to me, is the quiet resilience nurses carry every day. It’s not just physical — being on your feet for 12+ hours — it’s emotional. It’s being there for people on their hardest days and still showing up with empathy. That kind of strength is deep. It’s unspoken, but it’s so powerful.
What message would you share with nurses who may be feeling burnt out or unseen, especially when mental health isn’t openly talked about?
I’ve been there. Honestly, burnout is real, and it’s okay to say you’re not okay. You’re not weak for feeling exhausted; you’re human. I’d say to find your support system, whether that’s therapy, a trusted friend, or just a coworker who gets it. You deserve care, too. You can’t pour from an empty cup, and it’s not selfish to protect your peace.
Can you share a personal experience where communication, with either a patient or a coworker, made a real difference in your day?
I remember a shift where everything was chaotic — understaffed, high acuity. One of my coworkers pulled me aside and just said, “I’ve got your back. What do you need?” That moment changed the tone of my entire day. It reminded me I wasn’t alone, and we were in it together. That one check-in made a huge difference.
What are some small things that help you feel good and stay comfortable, even on tough days?
Skincare after a shift is my ritual. It sounds small, but it’s grounding for me. Music on the drive home, comfy clothes, and a moment of silence before bed. Also, I try to remind myself that I did the best I could that day. That mindset — grace over perfection — keeps me sane.
What role do you think communication plays in building strong, supportive teams in healthcare settings?
It’s everything. Honest, respectful communication creates trust. When people feel heard, they feel valued. That’s how you build a team that supports each other, where it’s okay to speak up, ask for help, or say, “I’m not okay today.” It’s what makes the difference between surviving and thriving at work.
At ISTE this summer, I lost count of how many times I heard “AI” as the answer to every educational challenge imaginable. Student engagement? AI-powered personalization! Teacher burnout? AI lesson planning! Parent communication? AI-generated newsletters! Chronic absenteeism? AI predictive models! But after moderating a panel on improving the high school experience, which focused squarely on human-centered approaches, one district administrator approached us with gratitude: “Thank you for NOT saying AI is the solution.”
That moment crystallized something important that’s getting lost in our rush toward technological fixes: While we’re automating attendance tracking and building predictive models, we’re missing the fundamental truth that showing up to school is a human decision driven by authentic relationships.
The real problem: Students going through the motions
The scope of student disengagement is staggering. Challenge Success, affiliated with Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, analyzed data from over 270,000 high school students across 13 years and found that only 13 percent are fully engaged in their learning. Meanwhile, 45 percent are what researchers call “doing school,” going through the motions behaviorally but finding little joy or meaning in their education.
This isn’t a post-pandemic problem–it’s been consistent for over a decade. And it directly connects to attendance issues. The California Safe and Supportive Schools initiative has identified school connectedness as fundamental to attendance. When high schoolers have even one strong connection with a teacher or staff member who understands their life beyond academics, attendance improves dramatically.
The districts that are addressing this are using data to enable more meaningful adult connections, not just adding more tech. One California district saw 32 percent of at-risk students improve attendance after implementing targeted, relationship-based outreach. The key isn’t automated messages, but using data to help educators identify disengaged students early and reach out with genuine support.
This isn’t to discount the impact of technology. AI tools can make project-based learning incredibly meaningful and exciting, exactly the kind of authentic engagement that might tempt chronically absent high schoolers to return. But AI works best when it amplifies personal bonds, not seeks to replace them.
Mapping student connections
Instead of starting with AI, start with relationship mapping. Harvard’s Making Caring Common project emphasizes that “there may be nothing more important in a child’s life than a positive and trusting relationship with a caring adult.” Rather than leave these connections to chance, relationship mapping helps districts systematically identify which students lack that crucial adult bond at school.
The process is straightforward: Staff identify students who don’t have positive relationships with any school adults, then volunteers commit to building stronger connections with those students throughout the year. This combines the best of both worlds: Technology provides the insights about who needs support, and authentic relationships provide the motivation to show up.
True school-family partnerships to combat chronic absenteeism need structures that prioritize student consent and agency, provide scaffolding for underrepresented students, and feature a wide range of experiences. It requires seeing students as whole people with complex lives, not just data points in an attendance algorithm.
The choice ahead
As we head into another school year, we face a choice. We can continue chasing the shiny startups, building ever more sophisticated systems to track and predict student disengagement. Or we can remember that attendance is ultimately about whether a young person feels connected to something meaningful at school.
The most effective districts aren’t choosing between high-tech and high-touch–they’re using technology to enable more meaningful personal connections. They’re using AI to identify students who need support, then deploying caring adults to provide it. They’re automating the logistics so teachers can focus on relationships.
That ISTE administrator was right to be grateful for a non-AI solution. Because while artificial intelligence can optimize many things, it can’t replace the fundamental human need to belong, to feel seen, and to believe that showing up matters.
The solution to chronic absenteeism is in our relationships, not our servers. It’s time we started measuring and investing in both.
Dr. Kara Stern, SchoolStatus
Dr. Kara Stern is Director of Education for SchoolStatus, a portfolio of data-driven solutions that help K-12 districts improve attendance, strengthen family communication, support teacher growth, and simplify daily operations. A former teacher, principal, and head of school, she holds a Ph.D. in Teaching & Learning from NYU.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Each call pulls officers from genuine emergencies, disrupts classrooms, and leaves students and staff shaken. While emergency protocols are essential, when swatting becomes routine, it’s clear that response plans alone won’t solve the problem.
Unpacking the early signals
Swatting rarely emerges out of thin air. It’s often the final act following a series of compounding behaviors, such as:
Online harassment
Peer conflicts
Risky social media challenges
Unaddressed behavioral concerns
These warning signs exist, but are typically scattered across multiple school departments.
Counselors might log escalating incidents. Teachers may notice changes in student behavior, and school resource officers (SROs) might track repeated visits involving the same individuals. Without a unified way to connect these observations, critical warning signs go unnoticed.
Operationalizing early intervention
Districts are reimagining how they capture and coordinate behavioral data. The goal isn’t surveillance or punitive action. It’s about empowering the right people with the right context to align and intervene early.
When schools shift from viewing incidents in isolation to seeing behavior patterns in context, they are better positioned to act before concerns escalate. This can mean initiating mental health referrals, alerting safety teams, or involving families and law enforcement partners at the appropriate moment with comprehensive information.
Technology that enables teams
The process requires tools that support secure, centralized documentation and streamline communication across counselors, administrators, safety staff, and other stakeholders. These systems don’t replace human judgment, but create conditions for clearer decisions and more timely coordination.
Swatting is just one example of how fragmented behavioral data can contribute to high-risk outcomes. Other incidents, such as escalating bullying, persistent mental health concerns, or anonymous threats often follow recognizable patterns that emerge over time. When schools use a centralized system to document and track these behaviors across departments, they can identify those patterns earlier. This kind of structured coordination supports proactive interventions, helping prevent larger issues before they unfold and reinforcing a culture of safety and awareness.
Consider Washington State, whereswatting affected more than 18,000 students last year, costing schools over $270,000 in lost instructional time. These figures illustrate the operational and human costs when coordination breaks down.
Reducing risk, not just reacting to it
Swatting is a symptom of a larger issue. Building safer schools means moving upstream from reactive emergency response to proactive coordination. It requires shared insight across teams, strengthened behavioral threat assessment protocols, and the right supports in place well before crisis calls occur.
Early intervention isn’t about adding complexity. It’s about reducing risk, improving situational clarity, and equipping school communities to act with confidence–not simply responding when harm is imminent.
Amanda Lewis, Versaterm
Amanda Lewis is a product manager at Versaterm.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Classroom discussions are among the most enriching aspects of higher education, offering students opportunities to engage with peers, deepen their understanding of course material, and draw meaningful connections between concepts. For instructors, these discussions serve as a powerful tool to foster collaboration, assess comprehension, and create a more dynamic and inclusive learning environment. Yet, leading effective discussions can be challenging, especially when students are hesitant to participate or when conversations lack depth and substance.
The field of health coaching—where communication is central to guiding clients toward greater self-awareness and behavior change—offers a valuable framework for enhancing classroom dialogue. Health coaching is a collaborative process that relies on intentional and empathetic communication to help clients explore their motivations, clarify their goals, and take ownership of their progress. By applying key communication strategies from this field, educators can elevate the quality of classroom discussions and create more meaningful interactions with students. This article explores how three core techniques from health coaching — the OARS framework (open-ended questions, affirmations, reflective listening, and summarization), rephrasing, and active listening — can be adapted to the classroom to facilitate deeper, more personally relevant conversations.
The OARS Framework
First and foremost, good discussions begin with good questions. Consider the principles contained in the acronym “OARS” to shape the way you formulate questions and listen to responses, facilitating more interactive and less directive discussions.
O: Open-ended questions: Ask questions that require more than discrete responses. Avoid questions that can be answered with “yes,” “no,” or a number. Instead of asking “Are people motivated solely by monetary incentives?”, consider asking: “Tell us about your sources of motivation,” “Why might people not be motivated when provided an incentive?” and “What, in your experience, have you seen motivate your peers to…?” When used effectively, open-ended questions encourage students to think more deeply and progress in their understanding. They can even prompt students to introduce classroom topics without the instructor ever having to explicitly steer the discussion in a particular direction.
A: Affirmations: Don’t hesitate to provide positive statements that acknowledge a student’s contribution. Affirmations foster respect and support an inclusive teaching climate; however, the affirmations must be genuine and authentic. Students notice when the instructor simply says “Great comment” or “Good question” to a majority of students’ responses. Remember, this isn’t an interrogation but a dialogue. Consider the potential impact of statements like: “Sara, thanks for volunteering to share your thoughts about applications of aerobic energy production in exercise programming,” or “Javier, I really appreciate how your comments reflect Van Gogh’s perspective on his use of sunflowers in his paintings.”
RS: Reflective Listening and Summarization: Reflective listening occurs when the instructor reflects back to the student the core elements of their contribution to the discussion. Reflective listening provides an excellent opportunity for the instructor to confirm their understanding of the student’s comments, as well as directing the conversation forward. In this step in the OARS framework, it may be appropriate to ask either a yes/no or an open-ended question. For example, “John, you’re saying personal accomplishment can be a powerful motivator among mountain athletes, is that right?” or “It seems like something is missing in our understanding of what happens when we introduce financial incentive to these groups. What do you think would happen if…?” When applied to the discussion as a whole, a summary of the main points made from the instructor’s perspective can be a great way to remind students of key points, reinforce the instructor’s informal assessment of student learning, as well as introduce the next topic or item in the lesson plan of the day.
Application Moment: Consider how you might have applied these principles of the OARS framework to a recent group discussion you led in class.
While the OARS framework provides an excellent guideline for how an instructor can improve the overall quality discussions, the following two techniques will provide concrete recommendations on what to say and how to act during the discussion.
Rephrasing
Remember the importance of good questions for good discussions? To take things one step further, consider the technique of rephrasing. To encourage deeper topic exploration, consider restructuring questions by replacing the intended question word (e.g., “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why,” or “how”) with a different one. For example, an instructor may want to ask, “How can we increase motivation?” and might rephrase that question as, “What factors increase motivation?” or “Where do you feel the most/least motivated?” or “Who demonstrates the most/least motivation?” or “Why does motivation ebb and flow?” or “When are you most/least motivated?” By changing the question word, the instructor can steer the discussion to change how students think about the question, perhaps eliciting a list of possible outcomes (e.g. “What are the factors?”) or explore possible mechanisms/antecedents (e.g., “Why might motivation decline in competitive settings?”) or to help the students develop their ability to embody or conceptualize new perspectives (e.g. “How do financial incentives impact different groups or individuals? John, you represent a group of…”). This can provide depth to the conversation, encourage creativity and application of concepts in discussion, and allows for the exploration of a variety of interesting tangents.
Application Moment: Write down a discussion question from your last class instruction. Rephrase the question using each of the common question words (“who”, “what”, “when”, “where”, “why”, “how”). Consider the types of responses each question word will elicit.
Active Listening
Last, but not least, active listening: Often, instructors forget that when a question is asked, a response is on the way. It can be surprisingly difficult to fully engage with student responses, as it requires the instructor to focus on what the student is saying rather than on what they will say next. The instructor’s first job is to focus on what students are saying rather than their (the instructor’s) response. The following strategies promote active listening in the classroom during discussions:
Provide adequate time for student responses.
Don’t be afraid of silence. Silence provides you and your students time to think.
Call on students by their first name when you engage with them.
Get out from behind your lectern and casually move toward the student who is speaking.
Nod and use affirmations (e.g., nodding or stating “nice insight, Paul”).
Paraphrase when appropriate (“What I hear you saying, Paul, is that….”) – see “rephrasing/summarization” under the OARS framework.
Fostering meaningful classroom discussions is both an art and a skill—one that can be significantly enhanced by drawing on the principles of communication in health coaching. By integrating techniques such as the OARS framework, rephrasing, and active listening, instructors can create more engaging, inclusive, and thought-provoking learning environments. These strategies not only encourage deeper student participation but also help build a classroom culture rooted in empathy, curiosity, and mutual respect. As higher education continues to evolve, integrating communication practices from other disciplines can be a powerful means of enriching the educational experience and enhancing student learning.
Maria Newton, PhD, F-AASP, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at the University of Utah. She holds a BA from the University of California, Davis, an MS from California State University, Chico, and a PhD from Purdue University, with specialized training in sport and exercise motivation. Dr. Newton’s research focuses on achievement motivation, specifically how perceptions of the climate influence motivational striving. Her most recent contributions to the literature have focused on how creating a caring and task-involving climate fosters motivation. With over 30 years of experience in higher education, Dr. Newton brings extensive expertise in teaching a variety of courses in diverse formats. Recognized with numerous teaching awards, she is deeply committed to cultivating an inclusive and intellectually stimulating climate that inspires learning and personal growth.
Jefferson Brewer, MS, CSCS, ACSM EP, is an Associate Instructor in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at the University of Utah. He holds a BS in Kinesiology with an emphasis in Exercise Science and an MS in Kinesiology focused on Health and Wellness Coaching, both from the University of Utah. He is currently completing his dissertation for a PhD in Integrated Health Science at Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions. Jefferson’s research centers on metabolism in rock climbers—examining both systemic and localized muscular responses. Before transitioning into academia, he worked in patient care, applying his coaching background and exercise science expertise to improve health outcomes. His experience has shaped a teaching style grounded in interpersonal communication, creating engaging and dynamic learning environments that foster growth, curiosity, and academic success.
Classroom discussions are among the most enriching aspects of higher education, offering students opportunities to engage with peers, deepen their understanding of course material, and draw meaningful connections between concepts. For instructors, these discussions serve as a powerful tool to foster collaboration, assess comprehension, and create a more dynamic and inclusive learning environment. Yet, leading effective discussions can be challenging, especially when students are hesitant to participate or when conversations lack depth and substance.
The field of health coaching—where communication is central to guiding clients toward greater self-awareness and behavior change—offers a valuable framework for enhancing classroom dialogue. Health coaching is a collaborative process that relies on intentional and empathetic communication to help clients explore their motivations, clarify their goals, and take ownership of their progress. By applying key communication strategies from this field, educators can elevate the quality of classroom discussions and create more meaningful interactions with students. This article explores how three core techniques from health coaching — the OARS framework (open-ended questions, affirmations, reflective listening, and summarization), rephrasing, and active listening — can be adapted to the classroom to facilitate deeper, more personally relevant conversations.
The OARS Framework
First and foremost, good discussions begin with good questions. Consider the principles contained in the acronym “OARS” to shape the way you formulate questions and listen to responses, facilitating more interactive and less directive discussions.
O: Open-ended questions: Ask questions that require more than discrete responses. Avoid questions that can be answered with “yes,” “no,” or a number. Instead of asking “Are people motivated solely by monetary incentives?”, consider asking: “Tell us about your sources of motivation,” “Why might people not be motivated when provided an incentive?” and “What, in your experience, have you seen motivate your peers to…?” When used effectively, open-ended questions encourage students to think more deeply and progress in their understanding. They can even prompt students to introduce classroom topics without the instructor ever having to explicitly steer the discussion in a particular direction.
A: Affirmations: Don’t hesitate to provide positive statements that acknowledge a student’s contribution. Affirmations foster respect and support an inclusive teaching climate; however, the affirmations must be genuine and authentic. Students notice when the instructor simply says “Great comment” or “Good question” to a majority of students’ responses. Remember, this isn’t an interrogation but a dialogue. Consider the potential impact of statements like: “Sara, thanks for volunteering to share your thoughts about applications of aerobic energy production in exercise programming,” or “Javier, I really appreciate how your comments reflect Van Gogh’s perspective on his use of sunflowers in his paintings.”
RS: Reflective Listening and Summarization: Reflective listening occurs when the instructor reflects back to the student the core elements of their contribution to the discussion. Reflective listening provides an excellent opportunity for the instructor to confirm their understanding of the student’s comments, as well as directing the conversation forward. In this step in the OARS framework, it may be appropriate to ask either a yes/no or an open-ended question. For example, “John, you’re saying personal accomplishment can be a powerful motivator among mountain athletes, is that right?” or “It seems like something is missing in our understanding of what happens when we introduce financial incentive to these groups. What do you think would happen if…?” When applied to the discussion as a whole, a summary of the main points made from the instructor’s perspective can be a great way to remind students of key points, reinforce the instructor’s informal assessment of student learning, as well as introduce the next topic or item in the lesson plan of the day.
Application Moment: Consider how you might have applied these principles of the OARS framework to a recent group discussion you led in class.
While the OARS framework provides an excellent guideline for how an instructor can improve the overall quality discussions, the following two techniques will provide concrete recommendations on what to say and how to act during the discussion.
Rephrasing
Remember the importance of good questions for good discussions? To take things one step further, consider the technique of rephrasing. To encourage deeper topic exploration, consider restructuring questions by replacing the intended question word (e.g., “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why,” or “how”) with a different one. For example, an instructor may want to ask, “How can we increase motivation?” and might rephrase that question as, “What factors increase motivation?” or “Where do you feel the most/least motivated?” or “Who demonstrates the most/least motivation?” or “Why does motivation ebb and flow?” or “When are you most/least motivated?” By changing the question word, the instructor can steer the discussion to change how students think about the question, perhaps eliciting a list of possible outcomes (e.g. “What are the factors?”) or explore possible mechanisms/antecedents (e.g., “Why might motivation decline in competitive settings?”) or to help the students develop their ability to embody or conceptualize new perspectives (e.g. “How do financial incentives impact different groups or individuals? John, you represent a group of…”). This can provide depth to the conversation, encourage creativity and application of concepts in discussion, and allows for the exploration of a variety of interesting tangents.
Application Moment: Write down a discussion question from your last class instruction. Rephrase the question using each of the common question words (“who”, “what”, “when”, “where”, “why”, “how”). Consider the types of responses each question word will elicit.
Active Listening
Last, but not least, active listening: Often, instructors forget that when a question is asked, a response is on the way. It can be surprisingly difficult to fully engage with student responses, as it requires the instructor to focus on what the student is saying rather than on what they will say next. The instructor’s first job is to focus on what students are saying rather than their (the instructor’s) response. The following strategies promote active listening in the classroom during discussions:
Provide adequate time for student responses.
Don’t be afraid of silence. Silence provides you and your students time to think.
Call on students by their first name when you engage with them.
Get out from behind your lectern and casually move toward the student who is speaking.
Nod and use affirmations (e.g., nodding or stating “nice insight, Paul”).
Paraphrase when appropriate (“What I hear you saying, Paul, is that….”) – see “rephrasing/summarization” under the OARS framework.
Fostering meaningful classroom discussions is both an art and a skill—one that can be significantly enhanced by drawing on the principles of communication in health coaching. By integrating techniques such as the OARS framework, rephrasing, and active listening, instructors can create more engaging, inclusive, and thought-provoking learning environments. These strategies not only encourage deeper student participation but also help build a classroom culture rooted in empathy, curiosity, and mutual respect. As higher education continues to evolve, integrating communication practices from other disciplines can be a powerful means of enriching the educational experience and enhancing student learning.
Maria Newton, PhD, F-AASP, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at the University of Utah. She holds a BA from the University of California, Davis, an MS from California State University, Chico, and a PhD from Purdue University, with specialized training in sport and exercise motivation. Dr. Newton’s research focuses on achievement motivation, specifically how perceptions of the climate influence motivational striving. Her most recent contributions to the literature have focused on how creating a caring and task-involving climate fosters motivation. With over 30 years of experience in higher education, Dr. Newton brings extensive expertise in teaching a variety of courses in diverse formats. Recognized with numerous teaching awards, she is deeply committed to cultivating an inclusive and intellectually stimulating climate that inspires learning and personal growth.
Jefferson Brewer, MS, CSCS, ACSM EP, is an Associate Instructor in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at the University of Utah. He holds a BS in Kinesiology with an emphasis in Exercise Science and an MS in Kinesiology focused on Health and Wellness Coaching, both from the University of Utah. He is currently completing his dissertation for a PhD in Integrated Health Science at Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions. Jefferson’s research centers on metabolism in rock climbers—examining both systemic and localized muscular responses. Before transitioning into academia, he worked in patient care, applying his coaching background and exercise science expertise to improve health outcomes. His experience has shaped a teaching style grounded in interpersonal communication, creating engaging and dynamic learning environments that foster growth, curiosity, and academic success.
