Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.
Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that struck at the heart of American democracy. As the faculty adviser for Turning Point USA at Georgia College & State University, I took on that role despite significant ideological disagreements with the organization Kirk founded because I believe so fervently in the value of political discourse—even when that discourse makes us uncomfortable.
Kirk and I disagreed on virtually every policy issue. His rhetoric often struck me as divisive, and his positions frequently ran counter to my own deeply held beliefs. Nevertheless, I advised the campus chapter of his organization because I passionately believe that universities must be places where competing ideas can clash, where students can hear from voices across the political spectrum and where the marketplace of ideas remains vibrant and open.
The wave of faculty terminations sweeping across American institutions in response to Kirk’s death represents a dangerous moment for academic freedom and constitutional principles. Educators across the nation have been fired or suspended for social media posts that ranged from celebrating Kirk’s death to making pointed observations about the irony of his rhetoric regarding gun violence being an acceptable price to pay to maintain the Second Amendment. While these comments were often distasteful and insensitive, the rush to punish people for them reveals a troubling disregard for the First Amendment protections that should shield government employees—particularly university faculty—from exactly this kind of viewpoint-based retaliation.
I’m not defending the wisdom or sensitivity of the statements made about Kirk by those being fired. In point of fact, I believe that most if not all were ill-timed, crude, callous and deeply hurtful to those mourning Kirk’s death. But constitutional principles protect speech that offends, disturbs and challenges our sensibilities.
For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Rankin v. McPherson in response to a government employee being fired after expressing hope that a potential future assassin would succeed in killing President Reagan. Even though this despicable comment was said in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt against the president, the court nevertheless held that it was protected speech. If such an extreme statement merits protection, surely the same is true for similar statements about Kirk in the wake of his assassination.
The irony here is particularly acute. Conservative activists and politicians who claim to champion free speech principles are now leading coordinated campaigns to silence critics through organized pressure and doxing efforts. Meanwhile, university administrators—those who should be the staunchest defenders of academic freedom—are capitulating to political pressure rather than standing up for constitutional principles. The result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond these specific cases, sending a clear message to faculty everywhere that certain political viewpoints will no longer be tolerated.
For public university professors like me, this represents an especially troubling erosion of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that universities occupy a special place in our constitutional framework as centers of free inquiry and debate. The Pickering balancing test that governs government employee speech also typically weighs heavily in favor of faculty members discussing matters of public policy, precisely because such discourse is central to the university’s educational mission.
We’re witnessing universities abandon their constitutional obligations to appease a political pressure campaign, one often led by Republican members of government. Universities and school districts are making hasty decisions based on social media pressure rather than carefully considering their legal duties and educational responsibilities. This institutional cowardice not only violates the constitutional rights of individual employees but also undermines the very principles that make American higher education a global leader in research and innovation.
The legal precedent here is clear, and many of these terminations will likely be reversed through costly litigation. Even so, the damage to academic freedom and democratic discourse has already been done. The message being sent is that political speech—even on matters of clear public concern—can be punished if it offends the right people with sufficient political power.
This is precisely the moment when our institutions must demonstrate courage in defending constitutional principles. University presidents, school board members and other educational leaders must resist the pressure to sacrifice employees on the altar of political expedience. They must remember that their obligation is not to popular opinion or political movements, but to the Constitution and the principles of free inquiry that make education possible.
The death of Charlie Kirk was a senseless tragedy that robbed America of a young voice in our political discourse. But if we allow that tragedy to justify the systematic erosion of free speech protections, we will have compounded the damage immeasurably. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is not through ideological purges, but by recommitting ourselves to the principles of free expression and open debate that he claimed to champion.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University and the faculty adviser to the campus chapter of Turning Point USA.
Are you one of the reported 61% of higher education faculty now using AI in your teaching (Weaver, 2025)? A recent survey by the Digital Education Council (2025) found that 88% of AI-using faculty report minimal to moderate use. Further, 83% of faculty question students’ ability to evaluate AI-generated content, and 82% worry about student overreliance on AI tools.
So, while a majority of faculty are incorporating AI, many of us remain cautious about how to use it effectively in our higher education classrooms. This tension is further echoed in a recent 2025 EDUCAUSE AI Landscape Study, which reports 57% of schools, up from 49% last year, now identify AI as a “strategic priority” as they continue to adapt to the expanding impact of AI across teaching and learning (Robert & McCormack, 2025).
Our institutions want us to use AI in our classrooms, but how can we do this well? Research by Zhou and Peng (2025) found that AI supported instruction can enhance both student engagement and creativity, especially in creating personalized and collaborative learning experiences. Similarly, Walter (2024) found that training educators and students in prompt engineering and critical evaluation is a key component necessary to maximize AI’s potential while reducing risks of misuse and over reliance. To enhance our content, we need to think about how to use AI purposefully, training both ourselves and our students to engage with AI tools critically, creatively, and ethically.
This article examines how faculty can incorporate AI tools effectively into their disciplines, while guiding students to use AI to foster critical thinking and creative application. Drawing on my own research, it offers strategies to support thoughtful integration of AI into higher education classrooms, with a focus on ethical awareness and responsive instruction design.
What I Learned From Using AI in My Teaching
Over the past school year, I used AI as a tool in my undergraduate courses and found that students were not as adept at using AI as I had suspected. In fact, when I introduced AI as a required component of the course framework at the start of the semester, many students were uncertain how to proceed. Some shyly offered that they had used AI in courses previously, but many were hesitant, having been repeatedly warned that using AI could jeopardize their academic careers. Without explicit, scaffolded instruction, both students and faculty risk using AI superficially, missing its potential to meaningfully transform teaching and learning.
When AI Becomes the Assignment
In Spring 2025, I led a research project in my classes exploring how university students used AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to support iterative writing and refining complex tasks like lesson planning. The study emphasized ethical AI use and focused on prompt engineering techniques, including the use of voice-to-text, targeted revision, and staged feedback loops to improve idea generation, structure, and differentiation. I wanted students to engage in a critical evaluation of AI outputs, developing greater precision and agency in applying AI suggestions across drafting stages.
What I found was that students did not initially know how to talk to AI, rather they talked at it. At first, students did not get useful results because they were not tailoring their prompts enough. One student offered “I had to ask the same question 50 billion different ways to get the right answer.” What I discovered over those first few weeks was that students needed to learn to dialogue with AI in the right ways. They had to be intentional in what they were asking it and tailor their prompts specifically.
Try this instead:
Begin broad, then refine. Encourage students to start with a general idea, then narrow their prompts based on assignment goals and relevance of the AI’s output.
Promote iterative prompting. Teach students to revise their prompts by engaging in an ongoing process of dialoguing with AI, aimed at narrowing down their ideas. Author WonLee Hee (2025) offers the following framework: prompt, generate output, analyze, refine prompt, and repeat.
Why Prompting Is Worth Teaching
Students are using AI, but often without the skills to do so effectively—and that is where we come in. Poor prompting reinforces the very over-reliance that faculty fear, training students to accept whatever results AI delivers, rather than critically questioning them. When prompts are vague or generic, the results are too.
Students need specific instruction on how to prompt AI effectively. In my classes I used a structured, multi-step process that students followed each week. However, after reviewing student feedback and surveys, I realized that the process involved too many steps. If I wanted my students to use AI meaningfully beyond my course, I would need to refine and simplify the approach.
Try this instead:
Incorporate guided practice. Use a consistent AI tool at the start of the semester (I used ChatGPT) and model effective prompting and revision to help students build foundational skills.
Gradually increase student choice. After the initial learning phase, allow students to mix and match AI tools to personalize the process and deepen their engagement.
Embed critical reflection. Encourage studentsto treat AI as a thinking partner, not an all-knowing source. Design assignments so that they require ongoing interaction with AI (Gonsalves, 2024), such as using AI to generate counterarguments to their own essays or applying math concepts to real-world problems to identify gaps or misunderstandings in their thinking.
A Simple Framework for Better Prompts
A simple, three-phased framework will be more user friendly.
Explore: Encourage students to begin by collecting and thinking through wide-ranging ideas. Start with speech-to-text to brainstorm. Then narrow the focus, identify gaps, and use AI to help fill them.
Refine: Have students evaluate the AI outputs and add specific details to further improve clarity, accuracy, and relevance.
Revise: Use AI to check if ideas have been clearly communicated. This type of editing involves more than fixing grammar, it is about making sure that their message is clear, focused, and appropriate for the audience.
What Changed for Students
When I incorporated these changes, I saw that my students became more strategic thinkers and were less likely to merely copy from AI. In fact, over 73% of my study participants noted that they stopped accepting AI’s first response and began asking better follow-up questions, indicating that they were dialoguing with AI rather than just copying from it. Repeated practice helped them yield more accurate AI generated support and emphasized their importance in the process. They came to view AI as a support tool not a substitute for their own ideas. At the end of the study, one student noted “You have to be very specific… I have learned how to tweak my prompt to get the result I want.” Another, stated that “I started editing ChatGPT instead of letting it write for me.” These responses indicated a key shift: better prompting had reframed AI as a collaborator, not a crutch.
Final Thoughts
Teaching students how to create effective prompts is not about using technology, it is about teaching them to craft better questions. This practice reinforces critical thinking skills so many of us aim to develop in our disciplines. When students learn how to guide AI, they are also learning how to refine their own thinking. Encouraging reflection throughout the process fosters metacognition; by regularly engaging in this type of analysis of their decisions and ideas, students become more thoughtful, independent learners. By intentionally incorporating AI tools into our coursework, we are reducing the temptation for misuse and overreliance, creating space for more ethical and transparent use in our higher education classrooms.
AI Disclosure: This article reflects collaboration between the human author and OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 for light editing. All ideas, examples, and interpretations are the author’s own.
Lisa Delgado Brown, PhD, is a current Assistant Professor of Education at The University of Tampa and the former Middle/Secondary Program Administrator at Saint Leo University where she also served on the Academic Standards Committee. Dr. Delgado Brown teaches literacy courses with a focus on differentiation in the general education classroom.
References
Gonsalves, C. (2024). Generative AI’s Impact on Critical Thinking: Revisiting Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Marketing Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753241305980
Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3
Zhou, M., & Peng, S. (2025). The usage of AI in teaching and students’ creativity: The mediating role of learning engagement and the moderating role of AI literacy. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050587
Innovating new technologies in the classroom is not everyone’s jam. For some faculty, it can be a slog to keep up with the rapid emergence of new digital tools and their place in teaching. Yet others love discovering new tools that can enhance their teaching experience, support their students’ success, and are perhaps fun to use in the classroom. The tech-enthusiasts, or early-adopters (Rogers, 1962), however, can often feel isolated. There are few opportunities for them to exchange ideas with like-minded peers across campus and/or to engage in deeper professional growth in this area. These sentiments were often expressed by our UMass Amherst faculty.
To respond to these needs, we—the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) Team—embarked on creating a space where faculty could showcase their innovative approaches, inspire one another, refine their teaching practices through meaningful dialogue, and share teaching challenges honestly. In Fall 2022, we launched the Instructional Innovation Fellowship (IIF), adopting the Community of Practice (CoP) framework (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002) as a guiding strategy. CoP is defined as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). CoP’s three core elements— Community, Practice, and Domain—shaped the program’s design and implementation.
After completing the third iteration in the 2024-2025 academic year, and working with 30 instructors, we are excited to share the lessons we learned from designing and implementing the program. While IIF originated as a place to foster innovation in teaching, it also became a place for faculty to find strength through vulnerability—to learn with and from thought partners and supportive peers—and ultimately deepen their sense of belonging and community on campus.
As the name suggests, a Community of Practice should embody Community—a place where social interactions and relationships among members develop (Wenger et al., 2002). The IIF fosters a supportive space for meaningful discussion, knowledge sharing, and collaboration among instructors of record—full-time faculty, adjuncts, and graduate teaching associates—who shape higher education (Alhija & Fresko, 2018). Faculty from all disciplines are encouraged to join, promoting cross-disciplinary connections and breaking down academic silos (Perignat et al., 2023). Such engagement deepens self-awareness in teaching, enhances understanding of diverse student experiences, and builds instructor confidence (Harmon et al., 2024). The IDEAS team—comprising a faculty member, staff, and graduate assistant—plays a key role in organizing and facilitating sessions.
The Practice: How Do We Implement the Program?
The Practice element refers to activities, ideas, or tools that members share and maintain (Wenger et al., 2002). Faculty members and instructors apply to IIF from April to May. After a thorough selection process, 10 fellows are selected. We seek individuals who are eager to engage in a collaborative learning environment and who can commit to a year-long fellowship.
Throughout the year, fellows are expected to:
Present Twice – showcase two different innovative approaches to teaching
Attend Monthly Meetings – participate in eight in-person meetings, each lasting 1.5–2 hours
Collaborate with the IDEAS Team – work closely with our team to refine presentations and align with program expectations.
Share Resources – upload presentation slides and related instructional materials to a collaborative online platform
Contribute to Outreach – allow the IDEAS team to feature their teaching strategies in newsletters and online resources
Each session is designed to foster engagement and peer learning, typically following this format:
Community Building – Time to greet one another and check-in with one another.
Warm-Up Activity – Casual ice-breakers, thought-provoking questions, or interactive games.
Fellow Presentations – Two to three fellows share their innovative teaching practices (15-20 minutes each), followed by group discussions.
Community Building – Time to network and exchange ideas.
During our final meeting, typically held in May, we come together to reflect on the year’s learning journey and celebrate the fellows’ achievements. As a token of appreciation for their dedication and contributions, each fellow receives a $500 stipend.
The Domain: What Do We Talk About in the Program?
The Domain element is about a common interest or skill that brings people together (Wenger et al., 2002). Even though they teach different subjects, they come together to share creative and innovative teaching methods.
We ask faculty to prepare a presentation that addresses:
A teaching problem or challenge they were experiencing
Technologies/technology-mediated pedagogies to address it
Success and challenges they had in their approach
Future modifications to the approach
Over the years, faculty have shared their experiences and tips for using various technology-enhanced pedagogies that include digital storytelling practices, 3D printing, and video-production in the classroom. They also shared some lower-tech tricks that could be implemented immediately, such as using Google forms for absentee notifications or creating a ‘meme war’ to engage students in lively debate. You can read more about the strategies shared on our website.
Each year, the sessions organically became spaces where faculty started saying “here’s what worked, and here’s where I’m still struggling and can use some help.” Participants began openly discussing their challenges and seeking advice from their peers, an act that can be particularly difficult for faculty, who are often expected to be experts in their discipline. For example, some faculty members were challenged by attendance issues, while others bemoaned inappropriate use of Generative AI. Sessions transformed into collective brainstorming on how to use technologies and other strategies to address these challenges and became a safe space for faculty to get teaching advice.
The Outcomes: What is the Impact on Faculty? What Do We Recommend?
From our observations, surveys completed by participants, and faculty’s anecdotal feedback, we have learned that the IIF helped faculty feel less isolated in their teaching journey, realizing that others face similar struggles and moments of self-doubt. This sense of shared experience encourages participants to embrace vulnerability and to be more open and comfortable with the ups and downs of teaching.
The design and format of the presentations—which lends itself to presenting their innovations as ‘works-in-progress’—helps lead to lively discussion and group problem solving. The community acknowledges that, while we may be experts in some areas, there’s always room to grow. We hope this growth mindset is something that they can take back to their classrooms and students.
We also have a few key takeaways and recommendations for implementing a program, such as the IIF:
Selection & Commitment Matter: Although recruiting faculty members can be challenging due to their busy schedules, we found that offering a fellowship-style program helps overcome this obstacle. The selective application process allows for a more intentional and committed group of participants, ensuring that those who join are genuinely interested and able to engage fully. We also recommend that fellows sign a Memorandum of Understanding, outlining expectations
Presentation Drafting & Meeting: Meeting individually with faculty prior to the whole group presentation is beneficial in helping them shape their ideas and experiences into the format
Stipends: In line with the research in this area, even a modest stipend ($500) helps increase the prestige, commitment, and follow-through of participants (O’Meara, 2005; Jessani et al., 2020). Instructors prioritize these meetings, even when there are competing demands on their schedules
Clear Meeting Times & Format: Setting expectations on meetings dates and times, as well as format, during the application process enhances commitment and availability—though it inevitably restricts access for some folks who teach/have other commitments during those hours
Food & Refreshments: Modest refreshments, such as coffee and pastries, supports the creation a positive atmosphere and relaxes people in the space
The IIF program fosters an environment where interdisciplinary perspectives thrive, faculty find a supportive teaching community, and vulnerability is embraced as a path to growth. We are proud to be part of this transformative initiative.
Sharon Kearney, PhD, (Trinity College Dublin) is a member of the University of Massachusetts Amherst faculty, currently serving as a Lecturer in the Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies (TECS) in the College of Education. Additionally, Kearney has held positions as a K–12 educator, supervisor and mentor for teacher-candidates, and educational developer supporting faculty development. Her teaching and research interests span new literacies & literature, multicultural education, community-based learning, and technology-mediated pedagogies.
Nanak Hikmatullah, MSc, is a graduate assistant within the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is also a PhD student in the UMass Amherst Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies (TECS) department in the College of Education, and his research focuses on humanizing online education.
Joan Giovannini, MEd, is an Educational Developer with Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Prior to joining the UMass team, Giovanni worked as the Associate Director for the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship at Springfield College, and as a Faculty Member and Department Chair of Education at Holyoke Community College.
Brad Wheeler, PhD, is the Director of Faculty Engagement within the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Previously, Wheeler served as the Associate Director of Faculty Development at Brandeis University and the Assistant Director of Faculty Development at Boston University.
References
Harmon, J., Brown, A., Birbeck, D., Crockett, J., Panadgoo, S., Nawas, A., Stringer, A. & Costabile, M. (2024). Interdisciplinary reflection by higher education academics using teaching squares: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 106353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106353
Jessani, N.S., Valmeekanathan, A., Babcock, C.M. et al. (2020). Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 148. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00629-1
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Fresko, B. (2018). Graduate teaching assistants: how well do their students think they do? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 943-954. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1423673
O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging Multiple Forms of Scholarship in Faculty Reward Systems: Does It Make a Difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40197355
Perignat, E., Fleming, F. F., Nicholas, D., King, D., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Gondek, P. (2023). Effective practices for high performing interdisciplinary faculty teams. College teaching, 71(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2086525
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
Wise, K. (2020). Educational mindfulness: Embracing vulnerability. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 13(1).
This September when classes started, it wasn’t the first time I had met with the students who walked through the door. That’s because during the week before they arrived on campus, I had conducted online group interviews with students who expressed an interest in taking my courses. All the students had to do was show up at one of the times I had set aside to meet with them.
The interviews are a tradition at Sarah Lawrence College, where I teach, and they are designed to let students get to know more about us as individual faculty in order for them to see if they want to take one of our courses. It’s a practice other colleges should try.
The interviews, which typically last about 30 minutes, are not a substitute for the descriptions of my courses or the syllabi I post. They are best described as the academic equivalent of a movie trailer.
The difference in this case is that the students, unlike moviegoers, are not asked to sit quietly in their seats. They are invited to ask questions after I have conducted a short presentation of what I hope will happen in my class. In these precourse interviews the students are the ones with the decision-making power. When an interview ends, they can simply decide my class is not for them and go off to another interview.
Some of the questions I get are of the nuts-and-bolts variety. How much reading do I assign a week? How many papers do I require over a term? But many of the questions are substantive. Why Book X rather than Book Y? What was the most interesting essay I got back last year?
If there is enough time, I will ask the students interviewing me to say why my course might interest them and how it fits in with the other courses they are contemplating. Students are welcome to stay after the group interview is formally over and have a one-on-one conversation.
During the interviews, I also try to explain my thinking about teaching. I don’t, for example, subscribe to the tonnage theory of assigned reading. A course in which a student races through 500 pages a week is not, I believe, better than a course in which a student closely reads 200 pages a week.
Equally important, I don’t think students should be strictly on their own when it comes to writing their papers. In the so-called real world, my editors don’t wait until I have published a book or an essay to offer up their advice. They do it before I publish, and I try to apply that practice in my classes. I see myself as my students’ editor before I ever become their judge and jury.
When it comes to AI and ChatGPT, I don’t have a lot to say these days. I think the subject has been talked to death. I tell my students to stay away from AI and ChatGPT as much as possible. Why, I ask, pay good money for an education, then turn to software that limits your critical thinking and research? The writing assignments I give are, I hope, sufficiently thoughtful that AI and ChatGPT can only be of minimal value. When it comes to long-form essays, I want my students to think about the material they are analyzing with a depth that is impossible on a timed test.
Looking back on a week of interviews, I often worry that I have imposed too much of myself on students. But in the end that is, I think, a risk worth taking. What precourse interviews offer is a chance for students to see that a course is more than a rote plan. It’s an undertaking that depends on mutual engagement that resists easy prediction.
Nicolaus Mills is chair of the literature department at Sarah Lawrence College and author of Winning the Peace: The Marshall Plan and America’s Coming of Age as a Superpower (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
If that question immediately makes your heart race, muscles tense, or your face do an unflattering cringe type of expression, you’re not alone. This question used to immediately spike my blood pressure too, until I realized I wasn’t actually frustrated with the question itself or even the student who asked it, but I was frustrated with the culture we have created in education that influences this type of behavior.
Many students approach their education with a narrow goal: study hard, ace the exam, and get an A in the class. It can feel disappointing when students seem to only care about what will be on the test or how they can bargain to bump up their grades, compared to learning and applying new knowledge to real-world experiences. Traditional grading systems tend to highlight performance above progress and prioritize short-term achievements over long-term growth. This approach not only confines deeper learning but also limits students’ understanding of what success in education truly means. Alternative grading methods that support critical thinking and meaningful reflection, like competency-based grading, can effectively promote student learning and enhance engagement.
Point-Chasing vs. Progress-Making: When Learning Takes the Lead
Traditional grading systems often:
Emphasize point accumulation rather than true comprehension
Include punitive consequences for errors without offering a chance to revisit/improve early coursework
Encourage a focus on “final” grades instead of continuous learning and growth
Traditional grading can also be inconsistent (“Traditional Grading Systems vs. Standards-Based Grading Systems” 2023). A student who only partially understands the content might pass with the application of extra credit or a grading curve, while another student who makes significant progress over time may still fail simply due to early struggles that cannot be counterbalanced. As educators in higher education, we recognize that learning isn’t always linear; so why do our grading practices assume it is?
Meeting Students Where They Are: What is Competency-Based Grading?
Competency-based grading promotes multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency in specific skills or learning outcomes instead of assigning a single score or high-stakes pass/fail grade to an assignment (Townsley and Schmid 2020). In addition to knowledge, this framework assesses expected student attitudes and skills in a progressive design that holds students accountable. It is important to define clear learning outcomes along with a constructive feedback process to guide future development toward mastery. Naturally, this approach shifts the focus from a final judgment to ongoing growth and improvement. If a student does not meet expectations for a certain skill, they aren’t faced with a permanent loss of points but instead could remediate and try again. (Hanson n.d.)
Putting Mastery into Motion: Strategies to Get Started
Transitioning from a traditional grading system can be a daunting task. Here are six helpful strategies to get started:
Start small. Unless the program is completing a comprehensive curriculum redesign, reworking your entire course all at once is not recommended and would likely overwhelm you and the students alike. Pilot competency-based grading by applying it to a single assignment or unit taught within the course.
Define clear learning outcomes. Identify the specific skills and competencies all students should be able to demonstrate. Ensure outcomes are specific, measurable, and student-centered. For example, “will demonstrate proper hand hygiene using aseptic technique” is preferable to “will understand proper hygiene practices”.
Use outcome-driven rubrics. Competency-based education closely aligns with backward design, so use the determined learning outcomes to build directly correlated rubrics. Focus on mastery, not points. Allow students to access the rubrics in advance. Describe what “competent” looks like by providing specific criteria with behavioral statements for different levels of achievement and provide routine formative feedback on how students can improve if they do not meet expectations. Some of the same assignments can be used, but the method of assessment changes.
Use a 4-point scale (or similar) to assess student progress. Competency-based grading focuses on students demonstrating mastery of specific learning objectives rather than accumulating points. (“Extending Our View of Extending” 2022)
Plan for remediation activities. Incorporate opportunities for revision/resubmission attempts or re-demonstrations into the course schedule. For feasibility, set limits on the total number of resubmissions/re-demonstrations allowed or set a specific timeframe such as within one week of receiving faculty feedback.
Focus your feedback. Avoid commenting on everything and instead, try to highlight one or two priority areas to guide students toward targeted improvement and maintain a manageable workload. Offer timely individualized support and feedback based on each student’s needs. (Farah 2021; Townsley and Schmid 2020)
Troubleshooting the Transition
Challenges are expected to accompany any change but can usually be mitigated with some thoughtful planning. Although higher education seems to collectively be moving toward competency-based grading, some faculty may experience resistance from their faculty peers and learners. Being transparent by sharing the reason behind the change and how it will benefit students can help increase understanding and engagement from both parties. Providing real-world examples in this area and the powerful impact competency-based education has already had on learning is an influential bonus! Faculty may express valid concerns centered around the increased workload related to time and additional resource demands necessary for success. Since remediation takes time and effort from students and faculty alike, be sure to set clear limits on remediation assignments and the process for completion. Be the example you set for others by utilizing available resources and seeking out professional development opportunities to increase your knowledge. Several online tools, including assessment builders, feedback templates, and progress-tracking programs, can assist faculty in maintaining consistency and efficiency in competency-based grading implementation.
What You Gain When You Grade for Growth
After making the transition and offering a more personalized and reflective learning experience, students focus more attention on what they are learning as opposed to what grade they are getting. Their confidence and willingness to take academic risks increases while anxiety decreases without the fear of irreversible grade penalties taking up real estate in their mind. Instead of asking “How many points did I lose?”, students start asking “How can I improve or make that better?” – which is inspiring! Grading for growth isn’t about lowering academic standards. It’s about redefining meaningful learning and reshaping expectations. Minor changes can lead to major transformation. Take the first step and be prepared to marvel at what happens when students are empowered with the tools and encouragement to grow.
Lisa Pitzer, DNP, MSN, RN, CNE, CNE-cl, serves as an Assistant Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing in Peoria, Illinois. In this role, she oversees the Nursing Resource Center Simulation Laboratory and provides instruction in fundamentals and medical-surgical nursing. Dr. Pitzer is a Certified Nurse Educator and Certified Academic Clinical Nurse Educator whose scholarly interests focus on simulation-based pedagogy, curricular innovation, and advancing student success in nursing education. She is an active member of the National League for Nursing, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, and Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.
Townsley, Matt and Deron Schmid. “Alternative Grading Practices: An Entry Point for Faculty in Competency-Based Education.” The Journal of Competency-Based Education 5, no. 3 (2020): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1219.
The rapid adoption and development of AI has rocked higher education and thrown into doubt many students’ career plans and as many professors’ lesson plans. The best and only response is for students to develop capabilities that can never be authentically replicated by AI because they are uniquely human. Only humans have flesh and blood bodies. And these bodies are implicated in a wide range of Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs), such as intuition, ethics, compassion, and storytelling. Students and educators should reallocate time and resources from AI-replaceable technical skills like coding and calculating to developing UHCs and AI skills.
Adoption of AI by employers is increasing while expectations for AI-savvy job candidates are rising. College students are getting nervous. 51% are second guessing their career choice and 39% worry that their job could be replaced by AI, according to Cengage Group’s 2024 Graduate Employability Report. Recently, I heard a student at an on-campus Literacy AI event ask an OpenAI representative if she should drop her efforts to be a web designer. (The representative’s response: spend less time learning the nuts and bolts of coding, and more time learning how to interpret and translate client goals into design plans.)
At the same time, AI capabilities are improving quickly. Recent frontier models have added “deep research” (web search and retrieval) and “reasoning” (multi-step thinking) capabilities. Both produce better, more comprehensive, accurate and thoughtful results, performing broader searches and developing responses step-by-step. Leading models are beginning to offer agentic features, which can do work for us, such as coding, independently. American AI companies are investing hundreds of billions in a race to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This is a poorly defined state of the technology where AI can perform at least as well as humans in virtually any economically valuable cognitive task. It can act autonomously, learn, plan, and adapt, and interact with the world in a general flexible way, much as humans do. Some experts suggest we may reach this point by 2030, although others have a longer timeline.
Hard skills that may be among the first to be replaced are those that AI can do better, cheaper, and faster. As a general-purpose tool, AI can already perform basic coding, data analysis, administrative, routine bookkeeping and accounting, and illustration tasks that previously required specialized tools and experience. I have my own mind-blowing “vibe-coding” experience, creating custom apps with limited syntactical coding understanding. AIs are capable of quantitative, statistical, and textual analysis that might have required Excel or R in the past. According to Deloitte, AI initiatives are touching virtually every aspect of a companies’ business, affecting IT, operations, marketing the most. AI can create presentations driven by natural language that make manual PowerPoint drafting skills less essential.
Humans’ Future-Proof Strategy
How should students, faculty and staff respond to the breathtaking pace of change and profound uncertainties about the future of labor markets? The OpenAI representative was right: reallocation of time and resources from easily automatable skills to those that only humans with bodies can do. Let us spend less time teaching and learning skills that are likely to be automated soon.
Technical Skills OUT
Uniquely Human Capacities IN
Basic coding
Mindfulness, empathy, and compassion
Data entry and bookkeeping
Ethical judgment, meaning making, and critical thinking
Mastery of single-purpose software (e.g., PowerPoint, Excel, accounting apps)
Authentic and ethical use of generative and other kinds of AI to augment UHCs
Instead, students (and everyone) should focus on developing Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs). These are abilities that only humans can authentically perform because they need a human body. For example, intuition is our inarticulable and immediate knowledge that we know somatically, in our gut. It is how we empathize, show compassion, evaluate morality, listen and speak, love, appreciate and create beauty, play, collaborate, tell stories, find inspiration and insight, engage our curiosity, and emote. It is how we engage with the deep questions of life and ask the really important questions.
According to Gholdy Muhammad in Unearthing Joy, a reduced emphasis on skills can improve equity by creating space to focus on students’ individual needs. She argues that standards and pedagogies need to also reflect “identity, intellectualism, criticality, and joy.” These four dimensions help “contextualize skills and give students ways to connect them to the real world and their lives.”
The National Association of Colleges and Employers has created a list of eight career readiness competencies that employers say are necessary for career success. Take a look at the list below and you will see that seven of the eight are UHCs. The eighth, technology, underlines the need for students and their educators to understand and use AI effectively and authentically.
For example, an entry-level finance employee who has developed their UHCs will be able to nimbly respond to changing market conditions, interpret the intentions of managers and clients, and translate these into effective analysis and creative solutions. They will use AI tools to augment their work, adding greater value with less training and oversight.
Widen Humans’ Comparative Advantage
As demonstrated in the example above, our UHCs are humans’ unfair advantage over AI. How do we develop them, ensuring the employability and self-actualization of students and all humans?
The foundation is mindfulness. Mindfulness is about being fully present with ourselves and others, and accepting, primarily via bodily sensations, without judgment and preference. It allows us to accurately perceive reality, including our natural intuitive connection with other humans, a connection AI cannot share. Mindfulness can be developed during and beyond meditation, moments of stillness devoted to mindfulness. Mindfulness practice has been shown to improve self-knowledge, set career goals, and improve creativity.
Mindfulness supports intuitive thinking and metacognition, our ability to think clearly about thinking. Non-conceptual thinking, using our whole bodies, entails developing our intuition and a growth mindset. The latter is about recognizing that we are all works in progress, where learning is the product of careful risk-taking, learning from errors, supported by other humans.
These practices support deep, honest, authentic engagement with other humans of all types. (These are not available over social media.) For students, this is about engaging with each other in class, study groups, clubs, and elsewhere on campus, as well as engaging with faculty in class and office hours. Such engagement with humans can feel unfamiliar and awkward as we emerge from a pandemic. However, these interactions are a critical way to practice and improve our UHCs.
Literature and cinema are ways to engage with and develop empathy and understanding of humans you do not know, may not even be alive or even exist at all. Fiction is maybe the only way to experience in the first person what a stranger is thinking and feeling.
Indeed, every interaction with the world is an opportunity to practice those Uniquely Human Capacities (UHCs):
Use your imagination and creativity to solve a math problem.
Format your spreadsheet or presentation or essay so that it is beautiful.
Get in touch with the feelings that arise when faced with a challenging task.
Many students tell me they are in college to better support and care for family. As you do the work, let yourself experience as an act of love for them.
AI Can Help Us Be Better Humans
AI usage can dull our UHCs or sharpen them. Use AI to challenge us to improve our work, not to provide short cuts that make our work average, boring, or worse. Ethan Mollick (2024) describes the familiar roles AIs can profitably play in our lives. Chief among these is as a patient, always available, if sometimes unreliable tutor. A tutor will give us helpful and critical feedback and hints but never the answers. A tutor will not do our work for us. A tutor will suggest alternative strategies and we can instruct them to nudge us to check on our emotions, physical sensations and moral dimensions of our work. When we prompt AI for help, we should explicitly give it the role of a tutor or editor (as I did with Claude for this article).
How do we assess whether we and our students are developing their UHCs? We can develop personal and work portfolios that tell the stories of connections, insights, and benefits to society we have made. We can get honest testimonials of trusted human partners and engage in critical yet self-compassionate introspection, and journalling. Deliberate practice with feedback in real life and role-playing scenarios can all be valuable. One thing that will not work as well: traditional grades and quantitative measures. After all, humanity cannot be measured.
In a future where AI or AGI assumes the more rote and mechanical aspects of work, we humans are freed to build their UHCs, to become more fully human. An optimistic scenario!
What Could Go Wrong?
The huge, profit-seeking transnational corporations that control AI may soon feel greater pressure to show a return on enormous investment to investors. This could cause costs for users to go up, widening the capabilities gap between those with means and the rest. It could also result in Balkanized AI, where each model is embedded with political, social, and other biases that appeal to different demographics. We see this beginning with Claude, prioritizing safety, and Grok, built to emphasize free expression.
In addition, AI could get good enough at faking empathy, morality, intuition, sense making, and other UHCs. In a competitive, winner-take-all economy with even less government regulation and leakier safety net, companies may aggressively reduce hiring at entry level and of (expensive) high performers. Many of the job functions of the former can be most easily replaced by AI. Mid-level professionals can use AI to perform at a higher level.
Finally, and this is not an exhaustive list: Students and all of us may succumb to the temptation of using AI short cut their work, slowing or reversing development of critical thinking, analytical skills, and subject matter expertise. The tech industry has perfected, over twenty years, the science of making our devices virtually impossible to put down, so that we are “hooked.”
Keeping Humans First
The best way to reduce the risks posed by AI-driven change is to develop our students’ Uniquely Human Capacities while actively engaging policymakers and administrators to ensure a just transition. This enhances the unique value of flesh-and-blood humans in the workforce and society. Educators across disciplines should identify lower value-added activities vulnerable to automation and reorient curricula toward nurturing UHCs. This will foster not only employability but also personal growth, meaningful connection, and equity.
Even in the most challenging scenarios, we are unlikely to regret investing in our humanity. Beyond being well-employed, what could be more rewarding than becoming more fully actualized, compassionate, and connected beings? By developing our intuitions, morality, and bonds with others and the natural world, we open lifelong pathways to growth, fulfillment, and purpose. In doing so, we build lives and communities resilient to change, rich in meaning, and true to what it means to be human.
The article represents my opinions only, not necessarily those of the Borough of Manhattan Community College or CUNY.
Brett Whysel is a lecturer in finance and decision-making at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, where he integrates mindfulness, behavioral science, generative AI, and career readiness into his teaching. He has written for Faculty Focus, Forbes, and The Decision Lab. He is also the co-founder of Decision Fish LLC, where he develops tools to support financial wellness and housing counselors. He regularly presents on mindfulness and metacognition in the classroom and is the author of the Effortless Mindfulness Toolkit, an open resource for educators published on CUNY Academic Works. Prior to teaching, he spent nearly 30 years in investment banking. He holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Columbia University and a B.S. in Managerial Economics and French from Carnegie Mellon University.
Faculty and staff members at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University are among those who have been punished for their comments on Charlie Kirk’s death.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Nordin Catic/Getty Images/The Cambridge Union | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
College faculty and staff members have become popular targets of the right-wing doxing firestorm that ignited in the hours after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last week during an event at Utah Valley University. As of Thursday afternoon, Inside Higher Ed had identified 37 faculty and staff members who are being harassed online for allegedly critical or insensitive social media posts about Kirk. So far, at least 24 of those employees have been terminated, suspended or put on administrative leave, including employees at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University.
The force and scale of the doxing campaigns—and the speed with which institutions have moved to suspend or terminate their targets—paints a grim picture of free speech rights on public college campuses. Widespread doxing as a political tool to punish universities and academics is not a new phenomenon, but right now it’s particularly virulent, explained Keith Whittington, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on free speech. “The size of the activity, the pressure campaign and the … short period of time is highly unusual,” he said. “Universities feel like they’re under intense pressure to mollify right-wing activists and try not to draw negative attention from the [Trump] administration.”
Most of the higher education targets of doxing campaigns have been identified first by users on X, Facebook or other social media sites. Then anonymous accounts broadcast their name, employer, photo and contact information, along with calls for their firing. A group that calls itself the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation has also asked the public to submit via email or online the names, identifying information and screenshots of any person who has criticized Kirk or appeared to celebrate his death. On Sunday, the group claimed to have received more than 63,000 unique names.
The first call-outs that gained traction were particularly inflammatory. For example, a University of Toronto professor—who has since been placed on leave—posted in a comment on X, “shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist cunts.” This type of speech is often “universally condemned,” but it should still be protected by universities committed to First Amendment values, Whittington said. (Or Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Now, doxers are attacking even those who engage in mild criticism of Kirk or his supporters, as well as those who merely quote Kirk’s own views on gun control and other topics in juxtaposition to the news of his death.
“We do seem to see a pattern in which activists are very quickly moving beyond [more egregious] instances to much more marginal cases, where … we might not think that these particular examples of speech violated any widespread view that it is inappropriate or beyond the pale,” Whittington said.
A staff member at Wake Forest University in North Carolina was doxed and later terminated after posting on social media the lyrics, “He had it coming, he had it coming” from the Chicago song “Cell Block Tango.” One University of South Carolina professor was targeted by doxers for a critical Facebook comment about a state representative who supported Kirk and was later relieved of teaching duties because of it. A faculty member at East Tennessee State University was put on administrative leave after posting, “You can’t be upset if one of those deaths in [sic] yours #charliekirk” in response to a news headline that quoted Kirk saying, “It’s worth [it] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Inside Higher Ed has opted not to name employees that haven’t been confirmed by their university in order to prevent further harassment.
The number of doxing campaigns targeting educators is on the rise. Experts say higher ed employees can stay safe by keeping work and personal accounts separate, using email masks, and removing personal information from data broker sites. For more tips, see our story here.
So far no higher ed institution has faced as swift and fierce a condemnation from conservatives online as Clemson University, which, in response to the political pressure, has now terminated two faculty members and one staff member over their social media posts about Kirk. An assistant professor at Clemson was among the first to be named and shamed. On Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed, they posted, “Today was one of the most beautiful days ever. The weather was perfect, sunny with a light breeze. This was such a beautiful day.” Kirk’s supporters interpreted this comment as a celebration of his death. The Clemson professor also reposted jokes about the killing—including “no one mourns the Wicked” and “[N-word] worried about DEI and DIED instead.”
From there, the doxing machine roared to life. The student group Clemson College Republicans was the first to identify the professor and share their posts, according to U.S. representative Russell Fry, whose Sept. 11 post on X about the professor garnered 1.2 million views. The post was amplified by hundreds of right-wing accounts and other politicians, including U.S. representative Nancy Mace, who has commented on and reposted dozens of similar call-outs. Clemson officials issued a statement on Sept. 12, writing that “the deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and do not reflect the University values and principles that define our University community.” They made no mention of disciplining the employees involved and noted only that the university will “take appropriate action for speech that constitutes a genuine threat which is not protected by the Constitution.”
The pressure campaign continued. Two other employees of the public university—a staff member and another professor—were also targeted for their posts about Kirk’s death, and Republican politicians called for their firing, too. Clemson officials issued another statement a day later, stating that an employee had been suspended and reiterating that officials would take action “in cases where speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.”
The university did not name any employees or say what the suspended employee posted. However, the posts circulating online from the three Clemson employees in question appear to be protected speech, according to the way most First Amendment scholars interpret it.
Over the weekend, U.S. representative Ralph Norman, the X account for the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Republicans and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined in the calls for the employees’ firing, and some politicians called for the State Legislature to defund Clemson. So did President Donald Trump, who reposted a Truth Social post from South Carolina state representative Jordan Pace that said, “Now Clemson faculty is inciting violence against conservatives. It’s time for a special session to end this. Defund Clemson. End Tenure at State colleges.”
Clemson officials did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. The university’s academic freedom policy for faculty states, “When they speak or write as private persons, faculty shall be free from institutional censorship or disciplinary action, but they shall avoid creating an impression that they are speaking or acting for the University.” The Faculty Handbook doesn’t outline any clear exceptions to this rule but does note that “as professional educators and academic officers, they are aware that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, faculty members should endeavor to be accurate, to exercise due restraint, to show respect for the utterances of others, and, when appropriate, to indicate that they are not officially representing Clemson University.”
On Monday, Clemson announced it had terminated the staff member and removed both faculty members from their teaching duties. By Tuesday, all three employees had been terminated. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson told Clemson’s president he had the “full legal authority” to terminate the employees, writing in a statement, “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not shield threats, glorification of violence, or behavior that undermines the mission of our state institutions.” This contradicts what experts at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and other free speech experts have said in recent days: that speech, even if it’s poorly timed, tasteless, inappropriate, controversial or a nonspecific endorsement of violence, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
While these name-and-shame campaigns constitute a particularly harsh attack on campus speech, they are nothing new. In fact, they’ve increased in frequency since 2023, when many pro-Palestinian academics were targeted, said Heather Steffen, a humanities professor at Georgetown University and director of the American Association of University Professors’ Faculty First Responders group.
“Faculty who speak about certain issues have been more vulnerable to doxing for a long time,” Steffen said. “So anyone who talks about issues of race or racism, gender and sexuality, or Palestine tends to be more likely to be doxed or somehow otherwise attacked in a politically motivated fashion, as do academics who are faculty of color, or queer faculty, or trans faculty or pro-Palestinian faculty.”
Ultimately, it’s not about what the employees said, Whittington explained. It’s about the political outcomes.
“This is primarily about exercising political power and trying to silence and suppress people who disagree with you politically,” he said. “It doesn’t matter that the offense is trivial … What matters is you’re identifying people that you politically disagree with and you have a moment in which you can exercise power over those people. And there are lots of people willing to take advantage of those opportunities.”
In the fast-paced, demanding world of college education, joy might not be the first thing that comes to mind when we think about teaching. But bringing joy into the classroom can make a real difference; it boosts student engagement, sparks creativity, and supports academic success. Joyful learning is about building a space where curiosity can thrive, where students feel safe making connections, asking questions, and taking intellectual risks. When instructors intentionally weave joy into their teaching, they help students tap into their own motivation and foster a stronger sense of community and belonging. This article takes a closer look at how joyful pedagogy can turn the college classroom into a vibrant, supportive environment where students truly flourish.
What is Joyful Pedagogy?
Joyful pedagogy is an approach to teaching that fosters enthusiasm, engagement, and a deep sense of connection to learning. It cultivates the emotional and intellectual well-being of students by integrating curiosity, creativity, and meaningful collaboration into the learning process. According to Zull (2011), when students experience joy in learning, their brains are more receptive to new information, leading to deeper understanding and retention. This approach moves beyond traditional lecture-based instruction, incorporating active learning strategies and, yes, even some laughter along the way. Joyful pedagogy recognizes that students are more likely to succeed academically and personally when they feel a sense of ownership over their learning and when the classroom environment is supportive and stimulating.
By incorporating joyful teaching practices, educators create welcoming classrooms that inspire critical thinking and collaboration. Additionally, joyful pedagogy embraces flexibility and adaptability, allowing for various instructional methods that meet students’ individual needs.
The Power of Play
One powerful tool for cultivating joy in learning is play, something often overlooked in higher education. Play isn’t just for children; it’s an essential part of learning at all ages. Forbes and Thomas (2022) highlight that play supports overall well-being and serves as a meaningful pathway to learning, even for adult learners. In the classroom, play sparks joy, which can help reduce stress, boost optimism and resilience, and foster a more positive learning environment (Rylance-Graham, 2024).
Importantly, bringing joy into the learning process doesn’t mean sacrificing academic rigor. High expectations and challenging coursework can be upheld while making room for playful, joyful moments. In fact, play can offer much-needed balance, especially when tackling serious or emotionally heavy content (Forbes, 2021).
Research shows that enjoyment during learning increases blood flow to the brain, enhancing cognitive functioning (Purinton & Burke, 2019). When play and joy are intentionally woven into instruction, students often feel more connected to their professors and peers, relationships that can, in turn, motivate them to meet and exceed academic expectations (Forbes et al., 2022).
Play promotes flexible and creative thinking and increases productivity (Brown, 2009). It naturally draws students in, helping them engage more deeply and look forward to class. Because play is intrinsically motivating, it can shift how students relate to learning itself (Whitton & Moseley, 2019). Simply put, when students experience joy in learning, their engagement and their performance can thrive.
Practical Strategies for Infusing Joy
How can instructors bring joy into their day-to-day teaching? Below are two simple yet effective and easily adaptable strategies I’ve used in my courses.
On the first day of my Introduction to Special Education course, I arrive with a large sheet of poster paper and a collection of colorful paper scraps varied in shape, size, and color. As students enter the room, I invite each of them to choose a scrap of paper, any one they like. Before we begin introductions or any of the “usual” first-day business, I ask them to tape their chosen piece onto the poster, wherever they feel it belongs. Once everyone has placed their scrap of paper, I ask the following questions:
Why did you choose the piece you did?
Why did you place it where you did?
What do you notice about the overall design the group created?
Why do you think I started class this way?
What might this activity represent?
This simple yet engaging activity sparks curiosity and sets the tone for a semester rooted in exploration, connection, and reflection. While I can’t take full credit for the idea, it’s an activity shared by Marilyn P. Rice in the Professors at Play Playbook (2022), I’ve made it my own by adding a meaningful twist. I save the class poster and bring it back on the last day of the semester, hang it on the board, and ask the students if they remember creating it. Then I ask some reflective questions such as
How has your understanding of individual learners evolved since placing your scrap of paper on this poster?
How might this visual metaphor reflect the diversity you’ll encounter in your future classrooms?
What can you do to ensure every student feels like their “scrap of paper” belongs in your classroom?
The responses are always thoughtful, creative, and deeply personal. It’s a powerful way to bookend our learning journey and leave students with a lasting impression of the value of joy, inclusion, and connection in education.
To adapt the end-of-semester reflective questions to be relevant to a broader range of disciplines, the following could be posed:
How have you grown or changed since that first day?
What did you learn from your peers that has stayed with you?
Why do you think we’re revisiting this activity now, at the end of the course?
How might this visual metaphor of “many parts making a whole” guide you in your future classes, work, or life?
Alternatively, students could choose a second paper scrap to place on the poster, symbolizing their “after” self, creating a kind of before-and-after reflection.
Another example of joyful pedagogy involves using visual exploration to spark creativity and deepen understanding. While exploring the question “What is literacy?” I asked students to work in teams of two or three and head outside with their phones. Their task was simple: find and photograph something they believed represented literacy. They had 15 minutes to explore and return to class.
Once they returned, each group uploaded their photo to our online discussion platform. I projected the images for the whole class to see, and each team took a moment to explain why they chose their particular representation. The results were diverse, creative, and often surprising, ranging from street signs and murals to sculptures or even a menu spotted in an unexpected place.
This activity was not only fun and energizing, but it also prompted meaningful discussion about how literacy can take many forms in our everyday lives. It encouraged students to think beyond traditional definitions and consider how literacy shows up in the world around them.
Even better, this type of activity is easy to adapt to nearly any course topic. Whether you’re exploring themes like equity, identity, community, or content-specific concepts, inviting students to find and share visual representations brings movement, creativity, and fresh perspective into the learning experience.
If the aforementioned activities don’t quite fit your style, there are infinite ways to infuse joy into your teaching. For example, send students outside with chalk to solve a problem or equation on the sidewalk. Having students take a photo of their completed work to share with the class adds a collaborative element. Another example is to ask small groups of students to create and perform a short skit or role play to demonstrate a concept. This activity can add some fun along with a deeper layer of learning and engagement.
Bringing in board games or puzzles that connect to your course content is another engaging way to reinforce key concepts and spark curiosity. You can also flip the challenge by asking students to design their own games that relate to what they’re learning.
Even a quick three-minute brain break after 30 minutes of teaching can make a big difference. Ask students to stand up if possible and set aside all devices before the break begins. A brain break might include box breathing, stretching, structured movement, or a brainteaser. There are many resources available for brain break ideas, and they range from seated breathing exercises to dancing and everything in between. These quick pauses support focus and concentration, reduce stress, and contribute to a more positive learning experience (Tapp, 2020). Brain breaks can also help combat mental fatigue and give students a much-needed cognitive recharge.
Scaling Joy for Large Classes
Joy isn’t just for small seminar rooms; it is equally powerful in large lecture halls. In fact, joyful teaching may be even more important when students risk feeling lost in the crowd.
Here are a few scalable strategies:
Create a Class Playlist: Let students contribute songs and play them before class begins to set a positive tone.
Quick Icebreakers or Polls: Start class with a low-stakes question or prompt that encourages interaction.
Digital Scavenger Hunts: Use online tools for creative, content-linked challenges.
Infographic Partner Work: Students create visual summaries of key concepts together.
Pop Culture Connections: Use memes or relevant songs to reinforce course material and spark discussion.
These small touches can build community and make content feel more relevant without a full course redesign.
Key Takeaway
Joyful learning doesn’t have to involve elaborate plans or major changes to your teaching. In fact, it often emerges from small, intentional moments that make the classroom feel more human, more connected, and more alive. You don’t need to overhaul your entire lesson; just try one simple idea that adds a spark of joy to your students’ experience and see where it leads.
These joyful moments can increase engagement, deepen connection, and foster a more positive learning environment. Most importantly, by weaving joy into our teaching, we have the invaluable opportunity to inspire a lifelong love of learning, one that reaches far beyond the walls of the classroom.
AI Disclosure: ChatGPT was used for basic copyediting and general proofreading to check for redundancies and identify grammatical and word usage errors. It was also used to inspire ideas for the title of the article.
Robin Wolpinsky, EdD, is a clinical assistant professor in the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University. Her background and expertise are in school psychology, human development, special education, and adult learning. Dr. Wolpinsky is deeply committed to cultivating student success.
References
Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Forbes, L. (2021). The process of play in learning in higher education: A phenomenological study. Journal of Teaching and Learning. 15(1), 57-73.
Forbes, L. & Thomas, D. (2022). Professors at Play Playbook. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.
Purinton, E. & Burke, M. (2019). Student engagement and fun: evidence from the field. Business Education Innovation Journal, 11(2), 133-140.
Rice, M. (2022). Human growth and learning: Setting the stage. In Forbes, L. & Thomas, D. Professors at Play Playbook (pp. 92-93). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.
Rylance-Graham, R. (2024). The lived experience of play and how it relates to psychological well-being: An interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) study amongst undergraduate students from medicine, nursing, and allied health professions’ programmes in the United Kingdom. Nursing Research and Practice. Apr 3;2024:7871499. doi: 10.1155/2024/7871499.
Whitton, N. & Moseley, A. (2019). Play and learning in adulthood. In Whitton, N. & Moseley, A. Playful Learning: Events and Activities to Engage Adults. (pp. 12-24). New York: Routledge.
Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
In the fast-paced, demanding world of college education, joy might not be the first thing that comes to mind when we think about teaching. But bringing joy into the classroom can make a real difference; it boosts student engagement, sparks creativity, and supports academic success. Joyful learning is about building a space where curiosity can thrive, where students feel safe making connections, asking questions, and taking intellectual risks. When instructors intentionally weave joy into their teaching, they help students tap into their own motivation and foster a stronger sense of community and belonging. This article takes a closer look at how joyful pedagogy can turn the college classroom into a vibrant, supportive environment where students truly flourish.
What is Joyful Pedagogy?
Joyful pedagogy is an approach to teaching that fosters enthusiasm, engagement, and a deep sense of connection to learning. It cultivates the emotional and intellectual well-being of students by integrating curiosity, creativity, and meaningful collaboration into the learning process. According to Zull (2011), when students experience joy in learning, their brains are more receptive to new information, leading to deeper understanding and retention. This approach moves beyond traditional lecture-based instruction, incorporating active learning strategies and, yes, even some laughter along the way. Joyful pedagogy recognizes that students are more likely to succeed academically and personally when they feel a sense of ownership over their learning and when the classroom environment is supportive and stimulating.
By incorporating joyful teaching practices, educators create welcoming classrooms that inspire critical thinking and collaboration. Additionally, joyful pedagogy embraces flexibility and adaptability, allowing for various instructional methods that meet students’ individual needs.
The Power of Play
One powerful tool for cultivating joy in learning is play, something often overlooked in higher education. Play isn’t just for children; it’s an essential part of learning at all ages. Forbes and Thomas (2022) highlight that play supports overall well-being and serves as a meaningful pathway to learning, even for adult learners. In the classroom, play sparks joy, which can help reduce stress, boost optimism and resilience, and foster a more positive learning environment (Rylance-Graham, 2024).
Importantly, bringing joy into the learning process doesn’t mean sacrificing academic rigor. High expectations and challenging coursework can be upheld while making room for playful, joyful moments. In fact, play can offer much-needed balance, especially when tackling serious or emotionally heavy content (Forbes, 2021).
Research shows that enjoyment during learning increases blood flow to the brain, enhancing cognitive functioning (Purinton & Burke, 2019). When play and joy are intentionally woven into instruction, students often feel more connected to their professors and peers, relationships that can, in turn, motivate them to meet and exceed academic expectations (Forbes et al., 2022).
Play promotes flexible and creative thinking and increases productivity (Brown, 2009). It naturally draws students in, helping them engage more deeply and look forward to class. Because play is intrinsically motivating, it can shift how students relate to learning itself (Whitton & Moseley, 2019). Simply put, when students experience joy in learning, their engagement and their performance can thrive.
Practical Strategies for Infusing Joy
How can instructors bring joy into their day-to-day teaching? Below are two simple yet effective and easily adaptable strategies I’ve used in my courses.
On the first day of my Introduction to Special Education course, I arrive with a large sheet of poster paper and a collection of colorful paper scraps varied in shape, size, and color. As students enter the room, I invite each of them to choose a scrap of paper, any one they like. Before we begin introductions or any of the “usual” first-day business, I ask them to tape their chosen piece onto the poster, wherever they feel it belongs. Once everyone has placed their scrap of paper, I ask the following questions:
Why did you choose the piece you did?
Why did you place it where you did?
What do you notice about the overall design the group created?
Why do you think I started class this way?
What might this activity represent?
This simple yet engaging activity sparks curiosity and sets the tone for a semester rooted in exploration, connection, and reflection. While I can’t take full credit for the idea, it’s an activity shared by Marilyn P. Rice in the Professors at Play Playbook (2022), I’ve made it my own by adding a meaningful twist. I save the class poster and bring it back on the last day of the semester, hang it on the board, and ask the students if they remember creating it. Then I ask some reflective questions such as
How has your understanding of individual learners evolved since placing your scrap of paper on this poster?
How might this visual metaphor reflect the diversity you’ll encounter in your future classrooms?
What can you do to ensure every student feels like their “scrap of paper” belongs in your classroom?
The responses are always thoughtful, creative, and deeply personal. It’s a powerful way to bookend our learning journey and leave students with a lasting impression of the value of joy, inclusion, and connection in education.
To adapt the end-of-semester reflective questions to be relevant to a broader range of disciplines, the following could be posed:
How have you grown or changed since that first day?
What did you learn from your peers that has stayed with you?
Why do you think we’re revisiting this activity now, at the end of the course?
How might this visual metaphor of “many parts making a whole” guide you in your future classes, work, or life?
Alternatively, students could choose a second paper scrap to place on the poster, symbolizing their “after” self, creating a kind of before-and-after reflection.
Another example of joyful pedagogy involves using visual exploration to spark creativity and deepen understanding. While exploring the question “What is literacy?” I asked students to work in teams of two or three and head outside with their phones. Their task was simple: find and photograph something they believed represented literacy. They had 15 minutes to explore and return to class.
Once they returned, each group uploaded their photo to our online discussion platform. I projected the images for the whole class to see, and each team took a moment to explain why they chose their particular representation. The results were diverse, creative, and often surprising, ranging from street signs and murals to sculptures or even a menu spotted in an unexpected place.
This activity was not only fun and energizing, but it also prompted meaningful discussion about how literacy can take many forms in our everyday lives. It encouraged students to think beyond traditional definitions and consider how literacy shows up in the world around them.
Even better, this type of activity is easy to adapt to nearly any course topic. Whether you’re exploring themes like equity, identity, community, or content-specific concepts, inviting students to find and share visual representations brings movement, creativity, and fresh perspective into the learning experience.
If the aforementioned activities don’t quite fit your style, there are infinite ways to infuse joy into your teaching. For example, send students outside with chalk to solve a problem or equation on the sidewalk. Having students take a photo of their completed work to share with the class adds a collaborative element. Another example is to ask small groups of students to create and perform a short skit or role play to demonstrate a concept. This activity can add some fun along with a deeper layer of learning and engagement.
Bringing in board games or puzzles that connect to your course content is another engaging way to reinforce key concepts and spark curiosity. You can also flip the challenge by asking students to design their own games that relate to what they’re learning.
Even a quick three-minute brain break after 30 minutes of teaching can make a big difference. Ask students to stand up if possible and set aside all devices before the break begins. A brain break might include box breathing, stretching, structured movement, or a brainteaser. There are many resources available for brain break ideas, and they range from seated breathing exercises to dancing and everything in between. These quick pauses support focus and concentration, reduce stress, and contribute to a more positive learning experience (Tapp, 2020). Brain breaks can also help combat mental fatigue and give students a much-needed cognitive recharge.
Scaling Joy for Large Classes
Joy isn’t just for small seminar rooms; it is equally powerful in large lecture halls. In fact, joyful teaching may be even more important when students risk feeling lost in the crowd.
Here are a few scalable strategies:
Create a Class Playlist: Let students contribute songs and play them before class begins to set a positive tone.
Quick Icebreakers or Polls: Start class with a low-stakes question or prompt that encourages interaction.
Digital Scavenger Hunts: Use online tools for creative, content-linked challenges.
Infographic Partner Work: Students create visual summaries of key concepts together.
Pop Culture Connections: Use memes or relevant songs to reinforce course material and spark discussion.
These small touches can build community and make content feel more relevant without a full course redesign.
Key Takeaway
Joyful learning doesn’t have to involve elaborate plans or major changes to your teaching. In fact, it often emerges from small, intentional moments that make the classroom feel more human, more connected, and more alive. You don’t need to overhaul your entire lesson; just try one simple idea that adds a spark of joy to your students’ experience and see where it leads.
These joyful moments can increase engagement, deepen connection, and foster a more positive learning environment. Most importantly, by weaving joy into our teaching, we have the invaluable opportunity to inspire a lifelong love of learning, one that reaches far beyond the walls of the classroom.
AI Disclosure: ChatGPT was used for basic copyediting and general proofreading to check for redundancies and identify grammatical and word usage errors. It was also used to inspire ideas for the title of the article.
Robin Wolpinsky, EdD, is a clinical assistant professor in the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University. Her background and expertise are in school psychology, human development, special education, and adult learning. Dr. Wolpinsky is deeply committed to cultivating student success.
References
Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Forbes, L. (2021). The process of play in learning in higher education: A phenomenological study. Journal of Teaching and Learning. 15(1), 57-73.
Forbes, L. & Thomas, D. (2022). Professors at Play Playbook. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.
Purinton, E. & Burke, M. (2019). Student engagement and fun: evidence from the field. Business Education Innovation Journal, 11(2), 133-140.
Rice, M. (2022). Human growth and learning: Setting the stage. In Forbes, L. & Thomas, D. Professors at Play Playbook (pp. 92-93). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.
Rylance-Graham, R. (2024). The lived experience of play and how it relates to psychological well-being: An interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) study amongst undergraduate students from medicine, nursing, and allied health professions’ programmes in the United Kingdom. Nursing Research and Practice. Apr 3;2024:7871499. doi: 10.1155/2024/7871499.
Whitton, N. & Moseley, A. (2019). Play and learning in adulthood. In Whitton, N. & Moseley, A. Playful Learning: Events and Activities to Engage Adults. (pp. 12-24). New York: Routledge.
Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Effective teaching and learning are key elements of a student’s academic success, but ensuring professors have access to training, support and resources to employ best practices in the classroom can be a challenge for institutions.
At the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville’s Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences, Lynn Meade created the Faculty Learning Community to tackle this issue, uniting professors across disciplines to improve student learning and achievement.
The Faculty Learning Community, which launched this summer, strives to unite staff and faculty across campus to work toward the shared goal of student success, Meade said.
The background: Meade has worked as a communications professor at the University of Arkansas for two decades, but in 2023, she realized there were entire student support teams and departments that she didn’t know about. The university hosted an event on high-impact practices to invite stakeholders to share and learn from one another.
“I sat down at a table with a whole lot of student success people, and I was amazed at all the things that they were doing and how I could be on our campus for so long and [have] no idea the things that were going on behind the scenes, things students could take advantage of that they hadn’t yet,” Meade said.
This experience prompted her to get more involved with support staff and orchestrate opportunities for other professors to learn from one another across campus. “We need to find a way to integrate faculty and student success initiatives,” Meade said. “They need to know what one another are doing, they need to shake hands, make friends, have coffee, talk—the things that really make things happen, because our students, their success depends on us cooperating.”
Students are more likely to talk to a faculty member they trust than seek out a support office on campus, Meade said. “I think informing them not only how to teach their class well, but also how to integrate those resources, is really important.”
The result was the Fulbright Faculty Learning Community, a community of practice and faculty development program, which Meade now leads as director.
How it works: The program launched with four offerings for faculty: a course-building workshop, a reboot class to help with updating content, forums for sharing innovative teaching ideas and introductions to student success teams.
One of Meade’s goals is to avoid replicating existing efforts on campus but provide a one-stop shop to unify and amplify the great work taking place. “There’s so many cool resources on our campus, but there’s no one place they all exist,” she said.
The Fulbright Learning Community had its kickoff event this summer, engaging 14 faculty members in a three-hour workshop on course building.
The workshop invited faculty to consider students, rather than content, at the center of their syllabus, using a communications principle of audience and purpose. “I think if our audience is students and our purpose is to teach them, maybe we shouldn’t say, ‘I’m going to cover my material,’ but, ‘I’m going to think of ways that they can learn the material,’” Meade said.
Survey Says
A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 40 percent of respondents believe their academic success would improve if professors connected in-classroom learning to issues outside the classroom or students’ career goals.
Some professors who are straight out of grad school may have only received teacher education or used material given to them by other faculty, Meade said. Others who have taught abroad but never in the U.S. may need some help adapting their materials for American students.
The learning community also invited career center professionals to showcase ways to embed career competencies in the syllabus and attach resources to their learning management system to help address career development for students. A future session will invite professors to share how they’re using and teaching generative AI tools.
“Faculty success equals student success,” Meade said. “The teachers are their first line [of support]; a lot of that success is what’s happening with the teacher. When we all work together on the same side, how we communicate with each other is going to make a big impact on the student retention.”
If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.
