One of my quietest students once came up to me after class and said, “I’ve never felt comfortable speaking in English before this course.” That single sentence reminded me that what we build in the classroom goes far beyond lectures or grading. It’s the atmosphere we create that allows learning to happen. For this student, the turning point wasn’t grammar drills or vocabulary tests. It was trust.
As educators, we often focus on the what and how of teaching. But who the student in front of us matters just as much. In my experience, building genuine rapport is one of the most overlooked yet powerful strategies for helping students feel safe enough to participate, take risks, and grow.
What Rapport Really Means
Rapport is not about being the “fun” professor or trying to be everyone’s favorite. It’s about creating a space where students feel respected, seen, and supported not just academically, but as people.
In my classrooms, especially with my work with adult ESL learners in Kuwait, rapport means:
Greeting students by name and with warmth
Encouraging participation without pressure
Acknowledging their challenges as second-language users
Listening actively to their concerns and ideas
When students feel this kind of connection, they are far more willing to ask questions, attempt difficult tasks, and take ownership of their learning.
How I Build Rapport (and How You Can Too)
Here are five practical habits I’ve developed that have made a noticeable difference in student engagement and classroom climate.
1. Be Present Beyond the Podium
I make time before and after class for informal conversations, even brief ones. A simple, “How’s your week going?” can open doors. Students need to know we are not just grading machines. We are humans too.
2. Learn Names Quickly
It seems like a small detail, but using students’ names early in the semester changes everything. When I call on “Fatima” instead of “you in the third row,” I signal that her presence matters.
3. Use Encouragement Thoughtfully
When a student takes a risk, especially with speaking, I make sure to acknowledge the effort. Saying, “That was a great attempt,” helps build confidence and normalizes the learning process.
4. Normalize Mistakes
Learning is full of errors. I often point out my own slips and laugh with the class. This sets the tone that mistakes are part of the process, not something to fear.
5. Ask for Feedback and Act on It
I regularly ask students what’s helping and what’s not. If I change something based on their feedback, I let them know. This builds trust and shows them that their voices shape the learning experience too.
A Moment I’ll Never Forget
I remember one student, Yousef, who barely spoke during the first few weeks of class. He sat near the back, avoided eye contact, and never volunteered. I made a point to greet him by name each class, ask simple follow-up questions, and check in privately after group work. Slowly, he started opening up. First, he answered yes-no questions. Then, short phrases. By the end of the semester, he stood up and gave a short presentation in English. It wasn’t perfect, but it was powerful. Afterward, he told me, “You made me feel like I could do it.” That comment stays with me to this day.
How Rapport Transforms Feedback
One area where rapport makes a real difference is in how students receive feedback. Constructive feedback is essential for improvement, but it only works if students feel it comes from a place of support.
Once, I had to correct a student’s repeated grammatical mistake. It could have felt embarrassing, but because we had already built trust, she laughed and said, “I knew you would catch that.” She didn’t feel attacked. She knew the correction was about helping her grow.
This kind of response isn’t automatic. It comes from creating a consistent environment where feedback is expected, respected, and grounded in care.
The Ripple Effect of Strong Rapport
The impact of strong rapport is not limited to one assignment or one semester. I have seen students who once hesitated to speak now take initiative in group discussions, volunteer for peer mentoring, or continue English practice long after the course ends.
Rapport also builds community. When students see the teacher modeling kindness, encouragement, and open communication, they begin to do the same with each other. This shifts the classroom from a silent space to one that is collaborative and supportive.
What You Can Try This Week
If you’re looking to build rapport in your own classroom, here are three simple practices you can try immediately:
Learn and use student names within the first two weeks. Use name tents if needed. If you’re at mid-semester, consistent use of student names shows you care and value their presence which helps strengthen classroom connections.
Ask for anonymous feedback midway through the term. Just two questions: “What’s helping you learn?” and “What would you change?”
Set aside two minutes at the end of class to praise a risk taken, a great question asked, or a quiet win. This reinforces the kind of behavior you want to see more of.
These small actions compound over time. They send a clear message to students that they matter and that their growth is the shared goal of the classroom.
Final Thoughts: What They’ll Remember
As educators, we hope students walk away from our courses remembering the material. But what they often remember most is how we made them feel. Did they feel respected? Encouraged? Safe enough to take a risk?
If the answer is yes, then we have done more than teach. We have helped them build confidence, resilience, and the courage to use their voice.
That is the kind of learning that stays with them long after the final exam.
Fahad Ameen is a PhD researcher in Applied Linguistics at the University of Nottingham and an English language instructor at Kuwait University’s College of Education. His work focuses on student motivation, gamified learning, and building meaningful teacher–student relationships in Arab ESL contexts.
Wrapping up a recent course, one of my students approached and asked to talk. It turns out she wasn’t there to review an assignment or clarify a grade. Instead, she was seeking my advice on her future career: what were my thoughts on job prospects for her major; what professional pathways made sense, given our rapidly changing world.
As the conversation touched on search strategies, market forces, and even the shifting nature of work itself, I was struck by how the moment represented a growing phenomenon in higher education: helping students succeed beyond the academic setting is a shared responsibility, particularly as the call for post-academic success continues to grow.
Dedicated career centers lead the way for student success beyond campus, but when students seek guidance on their future professional roles, chances are it will be an instructor to whom they turn. That’s good news for those of us committed to academic success. When students reach out to faculty for career advice, it’s an opportunity to deepen trust and strengthen learner confidence–principles that correlate with learning success. It also allows us to link learning with purpose, while helping us more deeply understand the evolution of our disciplines.
Integrating career readiness into our courses benefits us all. Here are some simple steps to get started:
Instructors Are Career Influencers—Whether We Know It or Not
Classroom instructors are the most consistent professional mentors that students encounter throughout their college years. A passing comment about your own career trajectory, or a few minutes spent discussing potential paths in your field, can expand a student’s sense of what’s possible, particularly for those whose backgrounds lack the types of professional networks that can impact professional success. Inviting professionals into the classroom–whether through alumni networks, or local industry—is an opportunity to provide students with professional roadmaps. Sharing examples of the different ways your discipline shows up in the world can likewise orient students towards a meaningful future in which they will likely change careers multiple times. To help guide conversations, invite students to explore so-called “clusters” of careers using tools such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network which provides data on growing fields and industries.
Relevance Drives Engagement
When students understand how their academic work connects to real-world applications, their engagement deepens. They’re more likely to push through a complex assignment when they see how it builds toward the type of skills they can apply to future employment. Not every lesson needs to turn into a job training session but connecting the “what” of our teaching to the “why” that students are so often seeking strengthens outcomes and can also improve student satisfaction. Studies indicate that students gain motivation when they can see how the skills they’re developing serve a purpose beyond the classroom, so canvassing students about their future career goals and integrating conversations and activities that help them map content to careers can be highly effective.
Every Discipline Includes Transferable Skills
Supporting students with future career goals means guiding them to recognize key competencies that develop across disciplines and that are prioritized across professional fields. Key among these are the skills of critical thinking, communication, teamwork, cultural fluency, and ethical decision-making. Students won’t always recognize these as in-demand skills unless we name them, so consistently referencing their utility is an impactful step. That might mean pointing out that a history paper builds research skills; a biology lab fosters analytical reasoning; and a group project in any discipline develops collaboration and leadership skills that are prized in the workplaces of today. By drawing attention to these connections, we help students value the breadth of what they’re learning while helping them understand how to showcase these skills to future employers.
Hybrid Skills Define the Modern Workforce
Today’s employers seek graduates who bring both depth and versatility, meaning team members who know the specifics of their field, but can also communicate, adapt, and think creatively. These hybrid profiles are in demand across sectors and instructors can support their students by embedding assignments that mirror real-world demands. Case studies, presentations, simulations, along with reflective writing, all offer chances to practice skills that matter in professional life. When we give students opportunities to apply knowledge in dynamic ways, we prepare them not only for jobs, but for the type of lifelong learning these professional positions will demand.
Helping students prepare for their careers doesn’t dilute academic rigor; it strengthens it by affirming that education matters in the world beyond academics. That day in the classroom, as I listened to my student’s questions about her future, I realized she wasn’t looking for certainty, but rather the opportunity to engage in the very skills we’ve always valued in teaching: critical questioning, reflection, and the ability to envision new ways to advance. Faculty are in a unique position to offer this type of guidance. Embracing and integrating career readiness into our teaching supports the pedagogical goals of the classroom while helping students succeed well beyond them.
Juli S. Charkes, EdD, is a former Director of a Center for Teaching and Learning where she led faculty development across 100 academic programs. She has been a classroom instructor for the past 14 years, teaching organizational leadership, communications, and media studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Pleschová, G., Sutherland, K. A., Felten, P., Forsyth, R., & Wright, M. C. (2025). Trust-building as inherent to academic development practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2454704
Fish, N., Bertone, S., & van Gramberg, B. (2025). Improving student engagement in employability development: recognising and reducing affective and behavioural barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2461271
Wrapping up a recent course, one of my students approached and asked to talk. It turns out she wasn’t there to review an assignment or clarify a grade. Instead, she was seeking my advice on her future career: what were my thoughts on job prospects for her major; what professional pathways made sense, given our rapidly changing world.
As the conversation touched on search strategies, market forces, and even the shifting nature of work itself, I was struck by how the moment represented a growing phenomenon in higher education: helping students succeed beyond the academic setting is a shared responsibility, particularly as the call for post-academic success continues to grow.
Dedicated career centers lead the way for student success beyond campus, but when students seek guidance on their future professional roles, chances are it will be an instructor to whom they turn. That’s good news for those of us committed to academic success. When students reach out to faculty for career advice, it’s an opportunity to deepen trust and strengthen learner confidence–principles that correlate with learning success. It also allows us to link learning with purpose, while helping us more deeply understand the evolution of our disciplines.
Integrating career readiness into our courses benefits us all. Here are some simple steps to get started:
Instructors Are Career Influencers—Whether We Know It or Not
Classroom instructors are the most consistent professional mentors that students encounter throughout their college years. A passing comment about your own career trajectory, or a few minutes spent discussing potential paths in your field, can expand a student’s sense of what’s possible, particularly for those whose backgrounds lack the types of professional networks that can impact professional success. Inviting professionals into the classroom–whether through alumni networks, or local industry—is an opportunity to provide students with professional roadmaps. Sharing examples of the different ways your discipline shows up in the world can likewise orient students towards a meaningful future in which they will likely change careers multiple times. To help guide conversations, invite students to explore so-called “clusters” of careers using tools such as the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network which provides data on growing fields and industries.
Relevance Drives Engagement
When students understand how their academic work connects to real-world applications, their engagement deepens. They’re more likely to push through a complex assignment when they see how it builds toward the type of skills they can apply to future employment. Not every lesson needs to turn into a job training session but connecting the “what” of our teaching to the “why” that students are so often seeking strengthens outcomes and can also improve student satisfaction. Studies indicate that students gain motivation when they can see how the skills they’re developing serve a purpose beyond the classroom, so canvassing students about their future career goals and integrating conversations and activities that help them map content to careers can be highly effective.
Every Discipline Includes Transferable Skills
Supporting students with future career goals means guiding them to recognize key competencies that develop across disciplines and that are prioritized across professional fields. Key among these are the skills of critical thinking, communication, teamwork, cultural fluency, and ethical decision-making. Students won’t always recognize these as in-demand skills unless we name them, so consistently referencing their utility is an impactful step. That might mean pointing out that a history paper builds research skills; a biology lab fosters analytical reasoning; and a group project in any discipline develops collaboration and leadership skills that are prized in the workplaces of today. By drawing attention to these connections, we help students value the breadth of what they’re learning while helping them understand how to showcase these skills to future employers.
Hybrid Skills Define the Modern Workforce
Today’s employers seek graduates who bring both depth and versatility, meaning team members who know the specifics of their field, but can also communicate, adapt, and think creatively. These hybrid profiles are in demand across sectors and instructors can support their students by embedding assignments that mirror real-world demands. Case studies, presentations, simulations, along with reflective writing, all offer chances to practice skills that matter in professional life. When we give students opportunities to apply knowledge in dynamic ways, we prepare them not only for jobs, but for the type of lifelong learning these professional positions will demand.
Helping students prepare for their careers doesn’t dilute academic rigor; it strengthens it by affirming that education matters in the world beyond academics. That day in the classroom, as I listened to my student’s questions about her future, I realized she wasn’t looking for certainty, but rather the opportunity to engage in the very skills we’ve always valued in teaching: critical questioning, reflection, and the ability to envision new ways to advance. Faculty are in a unique position to offer this type of guidance. Embracing and integrating career readiness into our teaching supports the pedagogical goals of the classroom while helping students succeed well beyond them.
Juli S. Charkes, EdD, is a former Director of a Center for Teaching and Learning where she led faculty development across 100 academic programs. She has been a classroom instructor for the past 14 years, teaching organizational leadership, communications, and media studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Pleschová, G., Sutherland, K. A., Felten, P., Forsyth, R., & Wright, M. C. (2025). Trust-building as inherent to academic development practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2454704
Fish, N., Bertone, S., & van Gramberg, B. (2025). Improving student engagement in employability development: recognising and reducing affective and behavioural barriers. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2461271
What if the AI tools we are trying to limit and caution against were actually essential (or beneficial) to enhancing the critical thinking skills we are afraid of losing? Since the 2023 proliferation of generative AI, faculty have been inundated with warnings that human intelligence is being eroded by AI. As a result, some faculty have adopted policies banning or severely limiting AI use driven by concerns of academic integrity and the fear of students bypassing essential learning.
However, banning AI will not prevent students from using it, whether for nefarious or appropriate purposes. Instead, it may deny students a chance to practice and engage with AI in an educational setting where they and faculty can explore its full potential collaboratively. This kind of restrictive thinking is based on two flawed assumptions: that AI cannot support student thinking and that students will only use AI to cheat. The challenge is not to police every use, but to reframe our approach from one of prohibition to one of collaborative partnership.
This shift in perspective allows faculty to systematically integrate AI into courses in a developmentally appropriate manner. By centering policies on learning, we can encourage students to take an active, self-regulated approach to their education. This reframes the focus from dishonesty to autonomous learning, emphasizing academic values while scaffolding meaningful assignments that challenge student thinking.
Integrating AI into the curriculum requires a developmental approach, much like teaching toddlers. Expecting a first-year student to rely on AI for essential skills development is like asking a toddler to color within the lines—it’s developmentally inappropriate. Instead, our policies should align with a student’s progression. In lower-level courses, the focus must be on foundational skill-building including learning how to use AI. For upper-level and graduate students, we can empower them to autonomously evaluate AI’s role in their learning and whether or not AI is developing or replacing learning. Meanwhile, mid-level courses can provide a scaffolded transition, with specific instructions on how and when to use AI.
It is important to consider students’ prior knowledge of AI as well. While many are comfortable using technology and AI, they may lack metacognitive awareness of how their use affects learning. Understanding students’ technology usage is crucial when designing courses. Ultimately, use your best judgment—some graduate courses may require a cautious approach, while entry-level courses might benefit from a more permissive policy, especially since students within the same course can have a wide range of AI abilities.
How to Integrate AI Developmentally into Your Courses
Lower-Level Courses: Focus on building foundational skills, which includes guided instruction on how to use AI responsibly. This moves the strategy beyond mere prohibition.
Mid-Level Courses: Use AI as a scaffold where faculty provide specific guidelines on when and how to use the tool, preparing students for greater independence.
Upper-Level/Graduate Courses: Empower students to evaluate AI’s role in their learning. This enables them to become self-regulated learners who make informed decisions about their tools.
Balanced Approach: Make decisions about AI use based on the content being learned and students’ developmental needs.
Now that you have a framework for how to conceptualize including AI into your courses here are a few ideas on scaffolding AI to allow students to practice using technology and develop cognitive skills.
To introduce AI into your course, create a prompt that asks students to have a conversation with an AI about a concept you will be discussing. This anticipatory set can prime student thinking and encourage them to use AI in a conversational manner, moving beyond simply asking for answers. You can then discuss the AI’s responses—exploring bias, hallucinations, and the depth of its answers—which naturally leads to a conversation about crafting better prompts. This simple, ungraded exercise allows all students to participate, provides valuable practice, and serves a clear learning purpose.
Another example of a nongraded, purposeful use of AI is for providing feedback on learning. When students are writing papers, you can create custom AI agents to provide feedback on different parts of the writing process, from idea development to final submission. These agents can be designed to follow assignment criteria without writing any portion of the work. If students choose to use the agent, you can ask them to share their feedback conversations to assess the quality of the feedback and to write about how they incorporated it to develop their ideas—adding a crucial element of metacognition.
This method is also ideal for reinforcing and mastering skill development. For example, in a counseling course, students can practice articulating confidentiality and its limits to a fictional client created by AI. Once this foundational skill is mastered, the agent can be instructed to demonstrate signs of self-harm, allowing the student to practice assessing client safety and deciding whether to break confidentiality. As with the other examples, you can ask students to share their conversations for your feedback, have them critique their own performance, and provide a rationale for their approach. The agent itself can even provide feedback at the end of the session.
Finally, a higher level of AI integration is to have students create their own custom learning AI agent. By this point, students will have had multiple chances to improve their prompt writing, practice using AI for learning (not bypassing skills), and evaluate how AI supports their development. Creating a personalized study agent would be an ideal way for students to be active in their learning and assess the areas they need to develop. Faculty could provide guidelines and ask students to share how they are using AI positively.
How to Scaffold AI into Your Courses
Start with low-stakes, ungraded activities.
Then use AI to provide meaningful, real-time feedback.
Create opportunities for skill reinforcement and mastery.
Finally, empower students to become creators, not just users.
To truly prepare students for life after graduation, institutions and faculty must be willing to provide training on new technologies with a lens of learning. Faculty must move beyond fear and prohibition and engage directly with these tools. By exploring AI’s potential faculty can transform their teaching from a place of restriction to one of collaborative partnership.
By taking a development and scaffolded approach to AI implementation students can benefit from its potential. If this approach is embraced, the question is no longer “Should we allow AI in the classroom?” The more productive question becomes “How can we teach our students to become discerning and effective creators of a world shaped by AI?”
Michael Kiener, PhD, CRC, is a professor at Maryville University of St. Louis in their Clinical Mental Health Counseling program. For the past 10 years he has coordinated their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Program, where faculty participate in a yearlong program with a goal of improved student learning. In 2012 and 2024 he received the Outstanding Faculty Award for faculty who best demonstrate excellence in the integration of teaching, scholarship and/or service. He has over thirty publications including a co-authored book on strength-based counseling and journal articles on career decision making, action research, counseling pedagogy, and active and dynamic learning strategies.
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.
The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.
This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.
One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”
Discovering the Parking Lot
The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.
I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.
I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.
A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.
As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.
During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.
Bringing the Parking Lot to Life
On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.
I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.
The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.
Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.
This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.
Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes
It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.
This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.
The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.
I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.
I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.
Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.
I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.
I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.
This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.
Lessons Learned
In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection
This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.
A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.
Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.
Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.
What You Can Do Tomorrow
Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.
Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.
J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.
The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.
This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.
One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”
Discovering the Parking Lot
The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.
I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.
I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.
A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.
As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.
During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.
Bringing the Parking Lot to Life
On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.
I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.
The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.
Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.
This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.
Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes
It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.
This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.
The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.
I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.
I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.
Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.
I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.
I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.
This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.
Lessons Learned
In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection
This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.
A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.
Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.
Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.
What You Can Do Tomorrow
Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.
Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.
J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
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.
Parents who grew up in the ’80s and ’90s know the feeling: you’re listening to your kid’s playlist, and suddenly a song hits you with a wave of uncanny familiarity. Despite the claims by your teen that it is the latest and greatest, you know that it is just a repackaging of one of your favorite tunes from the past. I am noticing a similar trend with generative AI. It is inherently regurgitative: reshaping and repackaging ideas and thoughts that are already out there.
Fears abound as to the future of higher education due to the rise of generative AI. Articles from professors in many different fields predict that AI is going to destroy the college essay or even eliminate the need for professors altogether. Their fears are well founded. Seeing the advances that generative AI has made in just the past few months, I am constantly teetering between immense admiration and abject terror. My Chatbot does everything for me, from scheduling how to get my revise and resubmit done in three months to planning my wardrobe for the fall semester. I fear becoming too self-reliant on it. Am I losing myself? Am I turning my ChatGPT into a psychological crutch? And if I am having these thoughts, what effect is generative AI having on my students?
Remix vs. Originality: Girl Talk or Beyonce
Grappling with the strengths and weaknesses of my own AI usage, I feel I have discovered what might be the saving grace of humanity (feel free to nominate me for the Nobel Peace Prize if you wish). As I hinted earlier, AI is more like a DJ remixing the greatest hits of society rather than an innovative game changer. My ChatGPT is more like Girl Talk (who you have probably never heard of. Just ask your AI) than Beyonce (who you most definitely have heard of). Not that there’s anything wrong with Girl Talk. Their mashups are amazing and require a special kind of talent. Just like navigating AI usage requires a certain balance of skills to create a usable final product. But no matter how many pieces of music from other artists you mash together, you will not eventually turn into a groundbreaking, innovative musician. Think Pat Boone vs. The Beatles, Sha Na Na vs. David Bowie, Milli Vanilli vs. Prince, MC Hammer vs. Lauryn Hill.
What AI Gets Wrong in Writing
As a mathematician and a novelist, I see this glaring weakness in both of these very different disciplines. I’ll start with writing. ChatGPT is especially helpful in coming up with strange character or planet names for my science fiction novels. It will also help me create a disease or something else I need to drive the plot further. And, of course, it can help me find an errant comma or fix a fragmented sentence. But that is about it. If I ask it to write an entire chapter, for example, it will come up with the most boring, derivative, and bland excuse for prose I have ever seen. It will attempt my humor but fail miserably. It sometimes makes my stomach turn, it’s so bad.
A study from the Wharton School found that ChatGPT reduces the diversity of ideas in a pool of ideas. Thus, it diminishes the diversity of the overall output, narrowing the scope of novel ideas. Beyond that, I find that when I use ChatGPT to brainstorm, I typically don’t use its suggestions. Those suggestions just spark new ideas and help me come up with something different and more me.
For example, I asked ChatGPT to write a joke for its bad brainstorming practice of using the same core ideas over and over again. It said:
Joke: That’s not brainstorming—it’s a lazy mime troupe echoing each other.
That’s lame. I would never say that. But another joke it gave me sparked the music sampling analogy I opened this article with.
In any case, because of generative AI’s inability to actually generate anything new, I have hope that the college essay, like the fiction novel, will not die. Over-reliance on AI may indeed debilitate the essay, perhaps causing it to go on life support forcing students and faculty to drag its lifeless body across the finish line of graduation. But there is still hope.
I remember one of my favorite English teachers in middle school required that we keep a journal. Each day she asked us to write something, anything in our journal, even if it was only a paragraph or just a sentence. Something about putting pen to paper sparked my creativity. It also sparked a lifelong notebook addiction. And even though I consider myself somewhat of a techie and a huge AI enthusiast, to this day I still use notebooks for the first draft of my novels.
It is clear to me that ChatGPT will never be able to write my novels in my voice. I don’t claim to be a great novelist. I just feel that some of my greatest work hasn’t been written yet. While ChatGPT may be able to write a poem about aardvarks in the style of Robert Frost or a ballad about Evariste Galois in the style of Carole King, it can’t write my next novel, because it doesn’t yet exist. And even when it tries to imitate my voice and my style, predicting what I will write next, it does a poor job.
The Research Paper Dilemma: AI vs. Process
A research paper is inherently different from a creative work of fiction, however. ChatGPT does do a pretty good job of gathering information on a topic from several sources and synthesizing it into a coherent paper. You just have to make sure to check for the errant hallucinated reference. And honestly, when are our students ever going to be asked to write a 15-page research paper on Chaucer without any resources? And if they are, ChatGPT can probably produce that product better than an undergraduate student can. But the process, I would argue, is more important than the final product.
In his Inside Higher Ed paper Writing the Research Paper Slowly, JT Torres recommends a scaffolding process to writing the research paper. This method focuses on the process of writing a paper, exploring and reading sources, taking notes, organizing those notes into a ‘scientific story’ and creating an outline. Teaching students the process of writing the paper instead of focusing on the end product results in students feeling more confident that they can not only complete the task required but transfer those skills to another subject. Recognizing these limitations pushed me to rethink how I design assignments.
Using AI in the Classroom
Knowing that generative AI can do somethings (but not all things) better than a human has made me a more intentional professor. Now when I create assignments, I think: Can ChatGPT do this better than an undergraduate student? If so, then what am I really trying to teach? Here are a few strategies I use:
Method #1: Assess Your Assessments with AI in Mind
When designing an assignment, ask yourself whether it is testing a skill that AI already performs well. If so, consider shifting your focus to why that skill matters, or how students can go beyond AI’s capabilities.
Method #2: Use AI Where It Adds Value – Remove It Where It Does Not
In some cases, it makes sense to integrate AI directly into the assignment (e.g., generating code, automating data analysis). In others, the objective may be to build a human-only skill like personal expression or creative voice. I decide case by case whether AI should be a part of the process or explicitly excluded.
Method #3: Clarify Whether You are Teaching Theory or Application
When I am teaching tests, I have to ask myself: Am I assessing whether students understand the theory behind the test or whether they can run one using software? If it’s the latter, using AI to generate code might be appropriate. But if it’s the former, I’ll require manual calculations or a written explanation.
Method #4: Add a Reflection to any AI Supported Assignment
Any assignment where they are allowed to use AI, they also have to write a reflection about how they used AI and whether it was helpful or not. This encourages metacognition and reduces overreliance.
Method #5: Require Students to Share Their Prompts and Revisions
Having students share the prompts they used in completing the assignment teaches them about transparency and the need for iteration in their interaction with an AI. Students should not just be cutting and pasting the first response from ChatGPT. They need to learn how to take a response, analyze it then refine their prompt to get a better result. This helps them develop prompt engineering skills and realize that ChatGPT is not just a magic answer machine.
AI and the Limits of Innovation in Research
What about academic research in general? How is AI helping or hindering? Given that generative AI merely remixes the greatest hits of human history rather than creating anything new, I think its role in academic research is limited. Academic breakthroughs start with unasked questions. Generative AI works within the confines of existing data. It can’t sense the frontier because it doesn’t know there is a frontier. It can’t sample past answers of a question that hasn’t been asked yet. About a year ago, I was trying to get my AI to write a section of code for my research and it kept failing. I spent a week trying to get it to do what I wanted. I realized it was having such a difficult time because I was asking it to do something that hadn’t been done before. Finally, I gave up and wrote the piece of code myself, and it only took me about half an hour. Sure, the coding capabilities have gotten better over the past year, but the core principle remains the same. AI still struggles to innovate. It can’t do what hasn’t already been done. Also because of ‘creative flattery’ it wants to make you happy so it will try to do what you tell it to do even if it can’t. The product will be super convincing, but it can still be wrong.
I recently asked AI to write a theoretical proof that shows polygonal numbers are Benford distributed (Spoiler: They are not). Then I had it help me write a convincing journal-ready article. The only problem is it also wrote me a theoretical proof that Polygonal numbers are NOT Benford distributed as well. I submitted the former to a leading mathematics journal to see what would happen. Guess what, they caught it. A human was able to detect the ‘AI Slop’. This shows me, that (1) there will always be a need for human gatekeepers and (2) ‘creative flattery’ is extremely dangerous in a research setting and confirms the need for human review. The chatbot tries too hard to please, thus reinforcing what the user already thinks even if that means proving or disproving the exact same thing. Academic research thrives on novel questions and unpredictable answers, which AI is incapable of doing since it inherently just regurgitates what is already out there.
Helping Students See AI’s Blind Spots
The Benford Polygonal Numbers experiment is an important example of how we need to educate our students about AI usage in an academic setting. The Time.com article Why A.I. is Getting Less Reliable, Not More states that despite its progress over the years, AI can still resemble sophisticated misinformation machines. Students need to know how to navigate this.
One of my favorite assignments in my Statistics course is what I call:
Method #6: “Beat ChatGPT” – A Concept Mastery Challenge
Students must craft a statistics question that the chatbot gets wrong, explain why the chatbot got it wrong and then provide the correct answer. A tweak of this activity would be to take AI generated content and human written then compare and critique tone, clarity, or originality.
Remixing isn’t Creation
AI-generated content is like a song built entirely from remixed samples. Sampling has its place in music (and in writing) but when everything starts to sound the same, our ears and brains begin to tune out. A great remix can breathe new life into a classic, but we still crave the shock of the new. This is why people lost their minds the first time they heard Beyonce’s Lemonade or Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly – not because they followed a formula, but because they bent the rules and made something we’d never heard before. AI, for all its value, doesn’t break the rules. It follows them. That is the difference between innovation and imitation. It is also the reason why AI, in its current capacity, will not kill original thought.
Sybil Prince Nelson, PhD, is an assistant professor of mathematics and data science at Washington and Lee University, where she also serves as the institution’s inaugural AI Fellow. She holds a PhD in Biostatistics and has over two decades of teaching experience at both the high school and college levels. She is also a published fiction author under the names Sybil Nelson and Leslie DuBois.
Meincke, Lea, Gideon Nave, and Christian Terwiesch. 2025. “ChatGPT Decreases Idea Diversity in Brainstorming.” Nature Human Behaviour 9: 1107–1109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02173-x.
“I was afraid to leave my home for several weeks. I was afraid for the safety of my children. I received death threats.”
“I was vomiting throughout the day, couldn’t eat, was having constant panic attacks, couldn’t be around people or leave the house . . .”
“I was getting violent threats via email every day . . . The police were doing daily drive-bys because so many people threatened me with violence.”
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 28, 2025 — These are just some of the harrowing first-person accounts collected by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in “Sanctioned Scholars: The Price of Speaking Freely in Today’s Academy,” a new survey of scholars who have been targeted for any protected speech since the beginning of the decade.
“Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing ‘emotional harm,’” said FIRE’s Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “But our survey shows that it’s the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics, many of whom still suffer the consequences long after the controversy subsided.”
FIRE reached out to the over 600 academics listed in its Scholars Under Fire database who were sanctioned or targeted between 2020 and 2024, of whom 209 completed our survey. (FIRE’s survey was conducted before the Sept. 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, which was followed by nearly a hundred scholars being targeted, over a dozen fired, and 2025 emerging as a new record high.)
Nearly all (94%) who participated in the survey described the impact of their experience as negative. Roughly two-thirds (65%) experienced emotional distress, and significant chunks reported facing harrowing social setbacks, such as being shunned at work (40%) or lost professional relationships (47%) and friendships (33%).
For some, the consequences were severe. About a quarter of the scholars who completed the survey reported that they sought psychological counseling (27%), and 1 in 5 lost their jobs entirely (20%).
Nearly all institutions of higher learning promise academic freedom and free speech rights to their scholars. But many of the targeted scholars reported that they received no support from precisely the institutions and individuals who were supposed to have their backs in moments of crisis and controversy. Only 21% reported that they received at least a moderate amount of public support of their faculty union, for example, and a paltry 11% reported that they received public support from administrators.
Tellingly, colleagues felt more comfortable supporting the targeted scholars privately rather than publicly. Just under half of scholars received at least a moderate amount of private support from colleagues (49%), but only about a third (34%) received their support publicly.
In their open-ended responses to FIRE’s survey, many scholars reported that this was their deepest wound: the public silence and abandonment by their peers. “My biggest disappointment was in the cowardice of other faculty who refused to do anything public on my behalf,” one professor wrote.
“Free speech advocates have long argued that acts of censorship don’t just silence one person,” said Honeycutt. “They chill the speech of anyone who agrees with them, and even those who disagree but are too cowed to defend their right to speak. Our report shows that the academy urgently needs courageous faculty willing to stand up for their colleagues, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular.”
FIRE’s report also found a noticeable partisan gap in the level of public support reported by scholars. Larger proportions of conservative than liberal faculty reported that they received support from the general public (55% vs. 37%). But far fewer than their liberal peers reported that they received public support from their faculty union (7% vs. 29%) or their university colleagues (19% vs. 40%).
“Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that’s exactly what’s happening,” said FIRE Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “If faculty unions and institutions of higher learning won’t stand by scholars in their moments of crisis, they can’t claim to stand for free speech and inquiry.”
The Scholars Under Fire survey was fielded from Jan. 15 to April 15, 2025. A total of 635 scholars were invited to participate in this study, and 209 participated. The scholars recruited were individuals listed in FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire Database because they experienced a sanction or sanction attempt between 2020 and 2024. Participation in the survey was anonymous to encourage candid responses without fear of personal consequence, and to allow participants to speak more freely about their experiences.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
College students are mastering the art of “doing school” – but far too few are actually learning (Geddes et al., 2018; Stevens & Ramey, 2020; Weinstein et al., 2018). The widespread use of artificial intelligence tools among students complicates the learning process by blurring the line between genuine understanding and task completion (Gawande et al., 2020; Jie & Kamrozzaman, 2024). It is incumbent on faculty to design learning experiences that prevent students from mistaking a passing grade for a genuine education.
This hourglass paradigm, created by Western Kentucky University education faculty, outlines key stages of effective learning and aligns with current understanding of how the brain processes and retains information (Mahan & Stein, 2014). It functions as a conceptual guide, helping students contextualize instructional content within a broader framework of cognitive engagement. The hourglass shape represents the complexity and intellectual rigor inherent in genuine learning – an endeavor that far exceeds the passive acts of listening, reading, and rote repetition. Many students, shaped by their P–12 educational experiences, have developed habits that emphasize completing tasks over engaging deeply with the learning process. In high school, success often comes from passive methods like re-reading notes or even something as simple as listening attentively in class (Gurung & Dunlosky, 2023). These habits often persist into college, where students may misplace effort on checking boxes rather than meaningful engagement with the content. While this approach may yield favorable academic outcomes in the short term, it infrequently results in deep understanding.
Figure 1 – The Reading and Learning Hourglass Note. This figure was created by the authors.
Top Half of the Hourglass
The top half represents what students are expected to do when first exposed to novel material – either in lecture or when reading.
Step #1 – Establish a Purpose
This requires students orient themselves toward finding specific information. What specific information are they expected to discern while listening or reading? What are they supposed to do with the information they find? Purpose establishes reason for attention – a key component in encoding the visual/auditory stimuli (Dubinsky & Hamid, 2024). Good teaching provides purpose and directs attention to the most important information.
Practical Application for Instructors
Clearly communicate the purpose of each lecture, reading, or activity. Assign reading surgically – not whole chapters at once. Frame lessons with guiding questions or objectives that help students focus their attention and recognize what they are expected to learn and apply.
As students encounter information meeting the established purpose, they deliberately document (extract) the evidence. This, too, is an important part of the encoding process. It focuses attention, moving students from a passive state during which the mind is prone to wander to an active state of responsibility requiring productivity.
Practical Application for Instructors
Assign students a specific task during lectures or readings (e.g., identifying key arguments, examples, or terms) and require them to record and reflect on these findings. This encourages active engagement and accountability during knowledge acquisition.
Step #3 – Make Sense
Sense and meaning are both necessary for long-term learning, but they are different constructs. Sense means that something is readily comprehensible and consistently applied (Sousa, 2011). After students have extracted the evidence, do they comprehend the material? This is a stopping point if the answer is “No.” They should either revert to the material to try to make sense of it or ask questions of the instructor/classmates (or even generative AI, as permitted) to ensure comprehension.
Practical Application for Instructors
Pause periodically to ask comprehension questions or pose simple checks for understanding. Encourage students to identify confusing parts and model how to work through confusion by thinking aloud or unpacking difficult concepts together.
Step #4 – Form Meaning
Meaning is about connections and relevancy. Once the information has been extracted and is comprehensible, the next step is determining how it connects to other information. To what other concepts is it related in the subject/discipline? How does it connect to something the student knows personally? Formation of meaning and sense making are both crucial steps in the process of consolidation – the second step in the formation of long-term memory/learning.
Practical Application for Instructors
Help students connect new content to prior knowledge by explicitly referencing past lessons or real-world examples. Use prompts such as “How does this relate to what we learned last week?” or “Where have you seen this concept applied outside of class?”
Bottom Half of the Hourglass
With the passage of time comes opportunity to study the information. Studying requires consolidation, retrieval, and active production. If students are simply re-reading information or listening again to recorded lectures, they are still in the top half of the hourglass and are not yet studying – they are simply revisiting the knowledge event. Sometimes review is necessary to ensure sense and meaning. However, students need to understand that unless they are producing something new through active retrieval, they are not studying.
Step #5 – Integrate Knowledge
After students have read multiple assignments and listened to numerous lectures, the resulting notes must be integrated into a cohesive body of knowledge. Students must synthesize this information rather than treating each reading or lecture as a discrete element – a process that supports deeper consolidation over time (Squire et al., 2015).
Practical Application for Instructors
Design cumulative tasks that require students to synthesize information into thematic essays, comparative analyses, or concept maps. Encourage students to revisit and reorganize their notes periodically to build coherence across topics.
Step #6 – Reproduce Knowledge
The best way to study to facilitate long-term learning requires active retrieval (Karpicke, 2012; Sosa et al., 2018). This process strengthens neural connections by repeatedly firing related pathways, leading to long-term potentiation – essentially, learning. Crucially, retrieval typically involves unaided recall; the value lies in the act of retrieval itself, not the product it creates. Reflection and verbal production counts as retrieval even though the product is intangible.
Practical Application for Instructors
Design assignments that require students to produce something from memory (e.g., timed short-answer questions, practice exams, or unprompted written explanations). Encourage use of retrieval-based study tools and de-emphasize passive review.
Step #7 – Share Knowledge
Students often do not know when to stop studying. Many are surprised when asked when studying should stop – the answer feels obvious: “When the test is on my desk!” In reality, studying ends when one can teach the material to someone else. As the final step of the process, the reproduction of knowledge should be so comprehensive and fluent that the students can teach the material to a peer or another individual unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Practical Application for Instructors
Create opportunities for students to teach each other. Incorporate peer instruction, study partnerships, or group teaching assignments where students must explain key ideas to classmates or create short instructional videos.
In a time when grades are often mistaken for understanding and AI tools tempt students to outsource cognitive effort, we must reclaim the purpose of education. The hourglass paradigm reframes learning as an active, metacognitive process – one that challenges students to move beyond passive habits and toward lasting intellectual growth. By designing instruction that aligns with how the brain learns best, we as faculty can help students learn how to learn and not just how to pass. This is not just a pedagogical preference; it is a professional obligation.
Dr. Daniel Super is a Clinical Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Barbara and Kelly Burch Institute for Transformative Practices in Higher Education at Western Kentucky University.
Dr. Jeremy Logsdon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Teacher Education and director of the Center for Literacy at Western Kentucky University.
References
Dubinsky, J. M., & Hamid, A. A. (2024). The neuroscience of active learning and direct instruction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 163, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105737
Gawande, V., Al Badi, H., & Al Makharoumi, K. (2020). An empirical study on emerging trends in artificial intelligence and its impact on higher education. International Journal of Computer Applications, 175(12), 43-47.
Geddes, B. C., Cannon, H. M., & Cannon, J. N. (2018, March). Addressing the crisis in higher education: An experiential analysis. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference (Vol. 45). Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/3188/3106
Gurung, R. A. R., & Dunlosky, J. (2023). Study like a champ. American Psychological Association.
Jie, A. L. X., & Kamrozzaman, N. A. (2024). The challenges of higher education students face in using artificial intelligence (AI) against their learning experiences. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(10), 362-387. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.1210025
Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552
Mahan, J. D., & Stein, D. S. (2014). Teaching adults – Best practices that leverage the emerging understanding of the neurobiology of learning. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 44(6), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.003
Sosa, P. M., Gonçalves, R., & Carpes, F. P. (2018). Active memory reactivation improves learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(2), 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00077.2017
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns. Corwin.
Stevens, R., & Ramey, K. (2020, January). What kind of place is school to learn? A comparative perspective from students on the question. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences.
Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual guide. Routledge.
