Tag: Focus

Community, Classroom, and Cake – Faculty Focus

When I was handed the class list at the start of term, I sensed it was an opportunity to try something. The list told me that for most of the students taking the Leadership class, this was their only course for the semester. This is in line with the shift to part-time learning we have seen accelerate in the last five years. For this group of students, their only experience of college this semester would be the time we spent together as a class.

Each year at our graduation ceremony, we interview a couple of the graduating students and ask them about their time at college. When asked for a highlight, inevitably, almost without exception, year after year, the answer is the same: the community. It is the friendships they forge with their peers, friendships that often go on for years afterwards. They thrive on studying together. They love sharing life together. And they relish the interaction with the faculty. We all share a common meal area, so at any given lunch time you can find students of each year level sitting at the same table as faculty and staff discussing anything from the content of the morning’s lecture to the health of their family or the agonies of which team they support or some obscure drama they are streaming. Community is a very important value for our college.

Thirty or forty years ago, the experience of learning was summed up in the adage, “one third lecture, one third library, one third lunchroom.” But what happens when a part time student is not around for lunch times? And they don’t hang out in the library but access the journals and e-books remotely? That only leaves the lecture. The classroom becomes the focal point, not just of learning, but of the student’s experience of community and college as a whole. How then do I foster community among a class that will not be around any part of the college week other than this solitary class on a Tuesday afternoon?

Cake.

On Sunday afternoons I would bake a cake and bring it in for class on Tuesday. After the first hour of class, we would stop, make a cup of tea or coffee, and eat cake together. Now let me be very clear, I am no celebrity baker! I was using simple recipes. Across the semester I rotated through four types of cake: cinnamon tea cake, vanilla butter, chocolate, and orange cake. I have a limited repertoire!

The feedback from the students was very positive. A buzz quickly developed around ‘what type of the cake is it this week?’ (cinnamon tea cake proved to be the favourite). It became a ‘social lubricant’ allowing students who had not met before to comfortably chat and move beyond stilted conversations about the next assignment. And their expressions of thankfulness gave me the sense that they felt cared for. The Tuesday afternoon Leadership class developed their own sense of community that reflected the broader fabric of the college.

The success of the ‘cake experiment’ reinforces two important points for me as an educator. First, educational is fundamentally relational. Previous studies have highlighted that student learning is fostered through supportive relationships, both with faculty and student peers (Cranton 2016). As faculty bring authenticity to the classroom, it facilitates trust, openness, and engagement with others and the material (Cranton 2016). Personal authenticity is not just another part of an educator’s skill set, switched on and off when entering and leaving the classroom – authenticity needs to be authentic! I feel privileged in my context that I have the opportunity to get to know students and can genuinely say I enjoy relating to them. They are seeking to be authentic with me, as I with them. This reinforces the finding that “students appreciate feeling cared about and they want to connect with faculty members on a personal level” (Grantham et al 2015).

Of course, cake is only one example of how this can be developed. One of my colleagues teaches a foundation level courses to first years. Each semester, he invites his first-year class to his house for afternoon tea. It’s not compulsory yet most of the students relish taking up the invitation.

Second, the cake experiment fits with discussions about hidden curriculum. This has been a learning point for me as I have reflected on the semester. In our Leadership class we have discussed issues of power and ethics, developing culture, teams, vision and strategy, and patterns and styles of leadership; and the students have brought case studies from their contexts that have prompted excellent discussions. Yet I wonder if the most important thing I taught was through baking cakes. If the hidden curriculum are the behaviors, relationships, and values modelled and emphasized (Shaw, 2022), then perhaps baking cakes aligned with our discussions of how we use power as leaders, how we develop culture as leaders, how we embed vision as leaders and so on. The formal curriculum was reinforced by the hidden curriculum. And the hidden curriculum always overrides the formal curriculum!

It has been a(nother) semester of learning for me: yes, at heart of education is the relationships I enjoy with the students, and who I am is so much of what I bring to the classroom. Speaking of learning, I will need to learn some new cake recipes to expand my range for next semester.

David Wright is Dean of Students and Practical Ministry Lecturer at Bible College SA, Adelaide, Australia. He has taught undergraduate and graduate courses for the last thirteen years. His current research interests include gradeless learning and personal formation, and he is writing a book on the training and equipping of people to complement his earlier work on Integration in theological education.

References

Cranton, P. 2016. Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Sterling: Stylus.

Grantham, A., Robinson, E. E., Chapman, D., 2015. “That Truly Meant a Lot to Me.”: A Qualitative Examination of Meaningful Faculty-Student Interactions. College Teaching 63: 125-132.

Shaw, P. 2022. Transforming Theological Education: A Practical Handbook for Integrative Learning. 2^nd edition. Carlisle: Langham Global.

Source link

August 15, 2025
AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus
“Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
—Marie Curie

In my role as a fellow at my university’s Center for Teaching and Learning, I’ve had dozens of conversations with faculty across disciplines—and one pattern has become impossible to ignore. The gulf between those working to integrate AI into their teaching and those swearing off its use entirely is growing wider by the month. It’s not just about comfort with technology; it’s about pedagogical identity, ethics, trust, and the role of higher education in a rapidly changing world.

Some faculty are experimenting with co-written essays and AI-graded orals. Others are defaulting to analog tools like in-class handwritten exams. Still others are choosing not to address AI at all—perhaps hoping it will fade, or that someone else will lead the conversation. But as AI tools become more deeply embedded in how students learn, communicate, and imagine their futures, “not engaging” isn’t neutrality. It’s a message. And our students are listening.

AI may or may not upend higher education, but in the meantime, it’s prompting urgent questions: What are we assessing? What do we value? How do we prepare students not just to perform, but to think, reflect, and adapt in a world where generative tools are the norm?

This isn’t a call to panic, or to blindly adopt new technologies. Instead, it’s an invitation: to engage, to listen, and to rethink what meaningful learning looks like in the age of AI.

Head in the Sand Isn’t Helping

Faculty skepticism toward AI isn’t unfounded. Many of the concerns I’ve heard from colleagues are serious and principled: worries about surveillance and data privacy, the environmental toll of training large language models, the ethical murkiness of how datasets are scraped and whose labor powers “intelligent” systems. Others raise deeply humanistic questions: What happens to student creativity when a machine can draft a paper in seconds? What becomes of learning when shortcuts are so easy to take?

These aren’t trivial. But neither is pretending this technology doesn’t exist.

I recently reached out to a student who had taken a “W” in one of my courses. When I asked why he withdrew, he cited discomfort with the role AI was playing in the class. Not because of cheating or confusion, but because the presence of AI made him question the point of the course—and maybe of college altogether. If AI could do the work, what was the value of his contribution? Why were we still doing things the old way if the world had already changed?

That moment hit hard. Not because it revealed something broken in my class, but because it surfaced the very questions many students are too hesitant—or too disillusioned—to ask aloud.

Higher education is at an inflection point. If we refuse to engage with the forces shaping our students’ futures, we risk becoming irrelevant not because AI replaces us, but because we’ve chosen not to show up.

The Concerns Are Real—and Bigger Than Cheating

It’s easy to reduce the AI debate in education to one issue: cheating. And yes, generative AI makes it easier than ever to outsource writing, coding, or even lab reports. But the ethical landscape of AI is much broader, and in many ways, more troubling, than academic dishonesty alone.

There’s the environmental cost. Training a single large language model can consume more electricity and water than some small towns (though geography plays a key role in the cost and availability of these resources). As educators asking students to confront the realities of climate change, it’s fair to ask whether adopting energy-intensive technologies contradicts our values.

There’s also the labor behind the intelligence. Many AI models rely on vast troves of human-generated data, scraped without consent, and cleaned or labeled by underpaid workers in precarious conditions. Even as these systems are hailed as revolutionary, they’re often built atop invisible, exploitative structures.

And then there are the questions of voice and bias. Who gets to decide what “good writing” or “correct” analysis looks like when the algorithms were trained on dominant cultural norms? What knowledge gets privileged, and what gets erased?

These are valid reasons to hesitate. To question. To push back.

But they’re also reasons to talk—to surface the complexities with our students rather than shielding them from the conversation. Because AI isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a mirror reflecting what we value in education, labor, and society at large. And the only way to use that mirror well is to look into it—together.

Engagement Starts with Transparency

Even if you don’t use AI in your teaching—and even if you don’t want students to use it—ignoring it isn’t a neutral act. In today’s classroom, silence sends a message. And more often than not, students interpret that message as either indifference or confusion.

That’s why the most important place to start is also the simplest: your syllabus.

Whether you fully embrace AI, permit it in limited ways, or prohibit it entirely, make your expectations visible. Be specific about when, how, and why students are or are not allowed to use generative tools. If AI is restricted for certain assignments, explain the rationale. If it’s allowed, clarify what constitutes appropriate use—and what crosses the line into misrepresentation.

This isn’t just about compliance or classroom management. It’s about modeling critical thinking. When we articulate our stance on AI, especially with nuance, we teach students how to approach emerging technologies with intention rather than fear or opportunism. We show them that tools are never neutral, and that ethical use requires context, purpose, and reflection.

A well-crafted AI policy in the syllabus isn’t just a rules section. It’s a pedagogical opportunity. It invites students to see learning as more than task completion—and faculty as more than enforcers of boundaries.

Co-Creating AI Policies with Students

One of the most illuminating experiences I’ve had with AI in the classroom wasn’t about a tool—it was about a conversation.

At the beginning of the term, I asked my students to help draft our class AI policy. Not just to vote on what was allowed or not, but to actually engage with the deeper questions:
- When does using it help us learn, and when might it interfere?
- Why might we choose not to use it, even if it’s available?
Some students were hesitant. Others were skeptical. A few openly admitted they hadn’t given the issue much thought. But the discussion that unfolded was rich, not because we arrived at a perfect consensus, but because we didn’t.

In fact, when I posed the question, “Can we come to a single, consensus class policy we all agree on?” several students said no. That moment, of disagreement, was a gift. It opened up a space to explore divergent opinions and values. What emerged was a shift from a single rule to individually described and justified policies: each student reflecting on how they might or might not use AI in their own work, and under what conditions.

The results were powerful. Students who had initially seen AI as a shortcut began to see it as a tool, one that like any other required skill, responsibility, and judgment. Others who feared AI’s presence in the classroom said they felt more respected, more seen, and more in control after having the chance to express their discomfort and shape the rules that would govern their learning.

Co-creating policy didn’t make the complexity go away. But it did something more important: it positioned students as thinking partners, not passive recipients. It made clear that education is not about enforcing compliance—it’s about wrestling with hard questions together.

Rethinking Assessment in an Age of Automation

If there’s one place where AI has rattled the foundations of higher education, it’s assessment. From auto-generated essays to AI-coded solutions, the fear is clear: how do we know students are actually doing the work themselves?

Some instructors have responded by doubling down: returning to blue books, in-class timed writing, or closed-note exams. But as one colleague of mine pointed out, even that has limits. Most of our students aren’t used to writing by hand anymore. For some, these methods feel less like rigor and more like an arbitrary barrier to demonstrating what they know.

Others are experimenting. A colleague now uses oral exams (with AI tools assisting in grading) to reduce bias and create a more authentic picture of student understanding. The approach is labor-intensive, but it’s also more human. It asks students to speak to what they’ve learned, to explain their reasoning, to think on their feet.

Is that scalable for every class? No. But it raises an important question: What exactly are we assessing, and why? Are we testing memory, or synthesis? Output, or process? Compliance, or curiosity?

AI is forcing us to reconsider not just how we assess learning, but what we think learning is.

Maybe it’s time to move beyond one-size-fits-all exams and instead explore multimodal assessments: things like revision portfolios, audio reflections, collaborative projects, or scaffolded assignments that make “cheating” harder not through restriction, but through design.

Yes, that takes time. Yes, it takes creativity. But perhaps what’s most needed isn’t new tools or tighter rules, but the courage to leave behind methods that no longer serve our students or our goals.

AI as Catalyst, Not Catastrophe

It’s tempting to view AI as the problem. And in some ways, it is, especially when it accelerates inequities, obscures labor or undermines trust. But it’s also a mirror. It reflects our uncertainty about what we’re teaching, how we’re measuring it, and why any of it matters.

For those of us in higher education, that reflection can feel uncomfortable. But discomfort isn’t the enemy. It’s often the beginning of clarity.

AI has surfaced long-standing tensions, between efficiency and depth, standardization and creativity, performance and learning. It’s challenged our assumptions about what knowledge looks like and who gets to demonstrate it. And in doing so, it’s offered us a rare opportunity: to rethink what we’re really doing in the classroom.

This doesn’t mean rushing to adopt every new tool. It doesn’t mean ignoring legitimate ethical concerns. It means refusing to retreat into defensiveness or nostalgia. It means showing up, for our students, for each other, and for the evolving work of teaching and learning.

Our students don’t need us to have all the answers. They need us to model how to live with the questions. They need to see that thoughtful, ethical, human learning is still possible, especially in a world full of algorithms.

So no, this moment doesn’t call for panic. But it does call for pedagogy. And purpose. And the willingness to meet the future, not with fear but with imagination.

Demian Hommel, PhD, teaches introductory and upper-division human geography courses in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. He is also a fellow with the institution’s Center for Teaching and Learning, working to push the mission of excellence in teaching and learning across his campus and beyond.
Source link
August 13, 2025
AI in the Classroom: Panic, Possibility, and the Pedagogy in Between – Faculty Focus
“Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
—Marie Curie

In my role as a fellow at my university’s Center for Teaching and Learning, I’ve had dozens of conversations with faculty across disciplines—and one pattern has become impossible to ignore. The gulf between those working to integrate AI into their teaching and those swearing off its use entirely is growing wider by the month. It’s not just about comfort with technology; it’s about pedagogical identity, ethics, trust, and the role of higher education in a rapidly changing world.

Some faculty are experimenting with co-written essays and AI-graded orals. Others are defaulting to analog tools like in-class handwritten exams. Still others are choosing not to address AI at all—perhaps hoping it will fade, or that someone else will lead the conversation. But as AI tools become more deeply embedded in how students learn, communicate, and imagine their futures, “not engaging” isn’t neutrality. It’s a message. And our students are listening.

AI may or may not upend higher education, but in the meantime, it’s prompting urgent questions: What are we assessing? What do we value? How do we prepare students not just to perform, but to think, reflect, and adapt in a world where generative tools are the norm?

This isn’t a call to panic, or to blindly adopt new technologies. Instead, it’s an invitation: to engage, to listen, and to rethink what meaningful learning looks like in the age of AI.

Head in the Sand Isn’t Helping

Faculty skepticism toward AI isn’t unfounded. Many of the concerns I’ve heard from colleagues are serious and principled: worries about surveillance and data privacy, the environmental toll of training large language models, the ethical murkiness of how datasets are scraped and whose labor powers “intelligent” systems. Others raise deeply humanistic questions: What happens to student creativity when a machine can draft a paper in seconds? What becomes of learning when shortcuts are so easy to take?

These aren’t trivial. But neither is pretending this technology doesn’t exist.

I recently reached out to a student who had taken a “W” in one of my courses. When I asked why he withdrew, he cited discomfort with the role AI was playing in the class. Not because of cheating or confusion, but because the presence of AI made him question the point of the course—and maybe of college altogether. If AI could do the work, what was the value of his contribution? Why were we still doing things the old way if the world had already changed?

That moment hit hard. Not because it revealed something broken in my class, but because it surfaced the very questions many students are too hesitant—or too disillusioned—to ask aloud.

Higher education is at an inflection point. If we refuse to engage with the forces shaping our students’ futures, we risk becoming irrelevant not because AI replaces us, but because we’ve chosen not to show up.

The Concerns Are Real—and Bigger Than Cheating

It’s easy to reduce the AI debate in education to one issue: cheating. And yes, generative AI makes it easier than ever to outsource writing, coding, or even lab reports. But the ethical landscape of AI is much broader, and in many ways, more troubling, than academic dishonesty alone.

There’s the environmental cost. Training a single large language model can consume more electricity and water than some small towns (though geography plays a key role in the cost and availability of these resources). As educators asking students to confront the realities of climate change, it’s fair to ask whether adopting energy-intensive technologies contradicts our values.

There’s also the labor behind the intelligence. Many AI models rely on vast troves of human-generated data, scraped without consent, and cleaned or labeled by underpaid workers in precarious conditions. Even as these systems are hailed as revolutionary, they’re often built atop invisible, exploitative structures.

And then there are the questions of voice and bias. Who gets to decide what “good writing” or “correct” analysis looks like when the algorithms were trained on dominant cultural norms? What knowledge gets privileged, and what gets erased?

These are valid reasons to hesitate. To question. To push back.

But they’re also reasons to talk—to surface the complexities with our students rather than shielding them from the conversation. Because AI isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a mirror reflecting what we value in education, labor, and society at large. And the only way to use that mirror well is to look into it—together.

Engagement Starts with Transparency

Even if you don’t use AI in your teaching—and even if you don’t want students to use it—ignoring it isn’t a neutral act. In today’s classroom, silence sends a message. And more often than not, students interpret that message as either indifference or confusion.

That’s why the most important place to start is also the simplest: your syllabus.

Whether you fully embrace AI, permit it in limited ways, or prohibit it entirely, make your expectations visible. Be specific about when, how, and why students are or are not allowed to use generative tools. If AI is restricted for certain assignments, explain the rationale. If it’s allowed, clarify what constitutes appropriate use—and what crosses the line into misrepresentation.

This isn’t just about compliance or classroom management. It’s about modeling critical thinking. When we articulate our stance on AI, especially with nuance, we teach students how to approach emerging technologies with intention rather than fear or opportunism. We show them that tools are never neutral, and that ethical use requires context, purpose, and reflection.

A well-crafted AI policy in the syllabus isn’t just a rules section. It’s a pedagogical opportunity. It invites students to see learning as more than task completion—and faculty as more than enforcers of boundaries.

Co-Creating AI Policies with Students

One of the most illuminating experiences I’ve had with AI in the classroom wasn’t about a tool—it was about a conversation.

At the beginning of the term, I asked my students to help draft our class AI policy. Not just to vote on what was allowed or not, but to actually engage with the deeper questions:
- When does using it help us learn, and when might it interfere?
- Why might we choose not to use it, even if it’s available?
Some students were hesitant. Others were skeptical. A few openly admitted they hadn’t given the issue much thought. But the discussion that unfolded was rich, not because we arrived at a perfect consensus, but because we didn’t.

In fact, when I posed the question, “Can we come to a single, consensus class policy we all agree on?” several students said no. That moment, of disagreement, was a gift. It opened up a space to explore divergent opinions and values. What emerged was a shift from a single rule to individually described and justified policies: each student reflecting on how they might or might not use AI in their own work, and under what conditions.

The results were powerful. Students who had initially seen AI as a shortcut began to see it as a tool, one that like any other required skill, responsibility, and judgment. Others who feared AI’s presence in the classroom said they felt more respected, more seen, and more in control after having the chance to express their discomfort and shape the rules that would govern their learning.

Co-creating policy didn’t make the complexity go away. But it did something more important: it positioned students as thinking partners, not passive recipients. It made clear that education is not about enforcing compliance—it’s about wrestling with hard questions together.

Rethinking Assessment in an Age of Automation

If there’s one place where AI has rattled the foundations of higher education, it’s assessment. From auto-generated essays to AI-coded solutions, the fear is clear: how do we know students are actually doing the work themselves?

Some instructors have responded by doubling down: returning to blue books, in-class timed writing, or closed-note exams. But as one colleague of mine pointed out, even that has limits. Most of our students aren’t used to writing by hand anymore. For some, these methods feel less like rigor and more like an arbitrary barrier to demonstrating what they know.

Others are experimenting. A colleague now uses oral exams (with AI tools assisting in grading) to reduce bias and create a more authentic picture of student understanding. The approach is labor-intensive, but it’s also more human. It asks students to speak to what they’ve learned, to explain their reasoning, to think on their feet.

Is that scalable for every class? No. But it raises an important question: What exactly are we assessing, and why? Are we testing memory, or synthesis? Output, or process? Compliance, or curiosity?

AI is forcing us to reconsider not just how we assess learning, but what we think learning is.

Maybe it’s time to move beyond one-size-fits-all exams and instead explore multimodal assessments: things like revision portfolios, audio reflections, collaborative projects, or scaffolded assignments that make “cheating” harder not through restriction, but through design.

Yes, that takes time. Yes, it takes creativity. But perhaps what’s most needed isn’t new tools or tighter rules, but the courage to leave behind methods that no longer serve our students or our goals.

AI as Catalyst, Not Catastrophe

It’s tempting to view AI as the problem. And in some ways, it is, especially when it accelerates inequities, obscures labor or undermines trust. But it’s also a mirror. It reflects our uncertainty about what we’re teaching, how we’re measuring it, and why any of it matters.

For those of us in higher education, that reflection can feel uncomfortable. But discomfort isn’t the enemy. It’s often the beginning of clarity.

AI has surfaced long-standing tensions, between efficiency and depth, standardization and creativity, performance and learning. It’s challenged our assumptions about what knowledge looks like and who gets to demonstrate it. And in doing so, it’s offered us a rare opportunity: to rethink what we’re really doing in the classroom.

This doesn’t mean rushing to adopt every new tool. It doesn’t mean ignoring legitimate ethical concerns. It means refusing to retreat into defensiveness or nostalgia. It means showing up, for our students, for each other, and for the evolving work of teaching and learning.

Our students don’t need us to have all the answers. They need us to model how to live with the questions. They need to see that thoughtful, ethical, human learning is still possible, especially in a world full of algorithms.

So no, this moment doesn’t call for panic. But it does call for pedagogy. And purpose. And the willingness to meet the future, not with fear but with imagination.

Demian Hommel, PhD, teaches introductory and upper-division human geography courses in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. He is also a fellow with the institution’s Center for Teaching and Learning, working to push the mission of excellence in teaching and learning across his campus and beyond.
Source link
August 13, 2025
Mentorship Gone Missing: A Blueprint for a Mentorship Program – Faculty Focus

Mentorship is a learning-centered, leadership-driven experience that nurtures the next generation of researchers and clinicians in academia (Rabeeah et al 2022). Faculty mentors in allied health science programs play a crucial role in shaping their mentees’ professional growth and long-term career fulfillment. Mentor-mentee relationships may be faculty and student, or seasoned faculty and junior faculty.

When reflecting on your prior experiences as a mentor or a mentee, ask yourself these questions:

1. Was it a positive experience?

2. Did you experience disparities based on your gender or race as a mentor or mentee?

3. Did you feel you had adequate training to be a mentor, or did your mentor demonstrate they had the skills to support you as a mentee? and

4. How were the mentors and mentees matched?

Many more questions need to be asked to ensure the mentor-mentee relationship and interactions are sufficient for exponential career growth. However, cultivating a positive experience for the mentee, ensuring there are no barriers (i.e., gender or race) for a unique experience, mentor training, and appropriate pairing of mentors and mentees are overarching considerations supported by evidence. (Rabeeah Z, 2022, Stenfors-Hayes T 2011, Mascarenhas F 2019, Bartle et al. 2020, Hill et al 2022, Frei et al 2010)

Problem

Concurrently, established formal mentorship programs are lacking in allied health science education programs for both students and junior faculty. Having formal mentorship programs for faculty to obtain training for mentorship roles and guidelines to support both junior faculty and students is essential for foundational success in academia. (Reibel & Arnett 2025, Mascarenhas F 2019) As a result of the lack of faculty mentors, students may not be getting exposure to avenues beyond clinical practice. This has been identified in dental hygiene education. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) It is suspected that allied health science programs, in general, have similar barriers to developing, implementing, and evaluating research mentorship programs. The goal of this article is to provide a blueprint for allied health programs to establish a framework for initiating a formal mentorship program.

Solution

To develop and implement a formal mentoring program, you need institutional ‘buy-in,’ strategic planning, faculty and students for piloting the program, an assessment metric(s), and a review of the outcomes process to make recommendations to modify the mentorship program. All these aspects depend on institutional support. The first step would be to identify the need for a mentorship program supported by evidence. The next step would be to align a mentorship program with the institution’s strategic plan.

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is essential for building coalitions among deans, department chairs, program directors, and mentors. It is the deliberate process of setting goals, identifying resources, and establishing priorities. Beginning with a vision and mission statement may serve as the foundation to set goals to execute and then position a mentor program to identify resources, priorities and specific groups or individuals in a coalition of champions.

To build a diverse wide network of champions to support a variety of perspectives, it is important to identify individuals and groups who can contribute a range of resources, are versatile, and have the ability to pivot when changes need to occur. However, it is equally important that the determined coalition of champions are in alignment with the vision and the mission of the mentorship program. A mentorship program coalition of champions may support inclusive and sustainable programing and increase the reach of available resources. Further a mentorship coalition is especially relevant to match appropriate mentors and mentees and provide a unique mentor experience for the mentee for lifelong learning and professional development.

The next aspect of strategic planning is the development and implementation of a pilot program. A mentorship pilot program is needed on a small scale to determine feasibility. Mentorship pilot programs are required to collect outcomes to evaluate for expansion and improvements. Additionally, if funding is required to sustain or build the mentorship program for expansion, these primary outcomes are needed to secure internal or external grant funding.

Allied health science programs may find available resources for a mentorship program through their human resource department, professional organizations, or government agencies. One example of a successful student research mentorship program was published in the Journal of Dental Hygiene in 2025. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) This student research mentorship program partnered with the Writing Enrichment Curriculum to develop assignments and rubrics to improve student writing. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) This student research mentorship program not only implemented standardized assignments and grading rubrics across the curriculum but also resulted in eight student-led peer-reviewed publications between the years 2019-2023. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) Although the strategic plan and resources provided in this publication are specific to an allied oral health science program, (Reibel & Arnett 2025) the information is transferable to any allied health science program for students and can be modified for a faculty mentorship focus.

Conclusion

This blueprint is applicable to formal mentorship for faculty and students. The main framework is transferable and can be modified to match your institution’s strategic plan and goals. It is important to be aware of key components to ensure a humanistic mentor and mentee experience is cultivated. Strategic planning is necessary for developing, implementing, and evaluating a mentorship program. A coalition of champions who share the values of the vision and mission of a formal mentorship program contributes to the overall mentorship program and evaluation of metrics for future modifications and longevity.

Michelle Arnett currently serves as a Tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Primary Dental Care, Division of Dental Hygiene (DH) at the University of Minnesota (UMN) School of Dentistry (SOD). Arnett has 10 years of experience in academics and research at the University of Michigan SOD and the UMN SOD, in addition to 21 years of clinical practice experience. Her areas of research focus are motivational interviewing and periodontology. Arnett has published over 50 peer-review articles and two textbook chapters. Of those 50, 29 are specific her research niche in motivational interviewing and periodontology. The remaining 21 peer-reviewed publications focus on her teaching, student mentee research projects, and faculty and students’ wellness. Arnett has given over 60 presentations; 20 were invited national and international events. In 2023, Arnett received the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) President Centennial Awards for Oral Health Education. This was a one-time award at ADEA’s centennial celebration for an allied dental faculty who has made and continues to make a significant and positive impact on oral health education. Arnett has taught Communications, Periodontology, Leadership, and the Dental Hygiene Care Process: Clinical Application III and IV in the UMN undergraduate DH program and Instructional Strategies, Thesis I and II, and Capstone I-IV in the UMN graduate DH program. Her professional memberships include Sigma Phi Alpha-Nu Chapter, American Dental Hygienists’ Association (ADHA), and the ADEA.

References

Bartle, Emma K., Brandon J. Crivello, Jeri L. Bullock, and Ezinne I. Ogbureke. “Mentorship availability and needs for junior faculty members at the United States and Australian dental schools.” European Journal of Dental Education 24, no. 4 (2020): 790-798.

Frei, Esther, Martina Stamm, and Barbara Buddeberg-Fischer. “Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008.” BMC medical education 10 (2010): 1-14.

Hill, Sarah EM, Wendy L. Ward, A. Seay, and J. Buzenski. “The nature and evolution of the mentoring relationship in academic health centers.” Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings 29, no. 3

Mascarenhas, Faye, Janice Townsend, Paul Caballero, Qingzhao Yu, and Paul L. Fidel Jr. “Student and faculty perspectives of a faculty‐student mentoring programme in a dental school.” European Journal of Dental Education 23, no. 2 (2019): 184-189.

Rabeeah, Zainulabdeen, Jocelid G. Carreno, Janet S. Kinney, and Marita R. Inglehart. “Career motivation and satisfaction of dental hygiene students in associate versus bachelor degree programs: A national survey.” Journal of Dental Education 86, no. 6 (2022): 649-660.

Reibel, Y.G., Jiang, Z., Arnett, M.C. “Mentor Like Minnesota: Outcomes of an undergraduate research mentorship program.” Journal of Dental Hygiene (Online) 99, no. 2 (2025): 48-54.

Stenfors‐Hayes, T., L. E. Lindgren, and S. Tranaeus. “Perspectives on being a mentor for undergraduate dental students.” European Journal of Dental Education 15, no. 3 (2011): 153-158.

Source link

August 11, 2025
Mentorship Gone Missing: A Blueprint for a Mentorship Program – Faculty Focus

Mentorship is a learning-centered, leadership-driven experience that nurtures the next generation of researchers and clinicians in academia (Rabeeah et al 2022). Faculty mentors in allied health science programs play a crucial role in shaping their mentees’ professional growth and long-term career fulfillment. Mentor-mentee relationships may be faculty and student, or seasoned faculty and junior faculty.

When reflecting on your prior experiences as a mentor or a mentee, ask yourself these questions:

1. Was it a positive experience?

2. Did you experience disparities based on your gender or race as a mentor or mentee?

3. Did you feel you had adequate training to be a mentor, or did your mentor demonstrate they had the skills to support you as a mentee? and

4. How were the mentors and mentees matched?

Many more questions need to be asked to ensure the mentor-mentee relationship and interactions are sufficient for exponential career growth. However, cultivating a positive experience for the mentee, ensuring there are no barriers (i.e., gender or race) for a unique experience, mentor training, and appropriate pairing of mentors and mentees are overarching considerations supported by evidence. (Rabeeah Z, 2022, Stenfors-Hayes T 2011, Mascarenhas F 2019, Bartle et al. 2020, Hill et al 2022, Frei et al 2010)

Problem

Concurrently, established formal mentorship programs are lacking in allied health science education programs for both students and junior faculty. Having formal mentorship programs for faculty to obtain training for mentorship roles and guidelines to support both junior faculty and students is essential for foundational success in academia. (Reibel & Arnett 2025, Mascarenhas F 2019) As a result of the lack of faculty mentors, students may not be getting exposure to avenues beyond clinical practice. This has been identified in dental hygiene education. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) It is suspected that allied health science programs, in general, have similar barriers to developing, implementing, and evaluating research mentorship programs. The goal of this article is to provide a blueprint for allied health programs to establish a framework for initiating a formal mentorship program.

Solution

To develop and implement a formal mentoring program, you need institutional ‘buy-in,’ strategic planning, faculty and students for piloting the program, an assessment metric(s), and a review of the outcomes process to make recommendations to modify the mentorship program. All these aspects depend on institutional support. The first step would be to identify the need for a mentorship program supported by evidence. The next step would be to align a mentorship program with the institution’s strategic plan.

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is essential for building coalitions among deans, department chairs, program directors, and mentors. It is the deliberate process of setting goals, identifying resources, and establishing priorities. Beginning with a vision and mission statement may serve as the foundation to set goals to execute and then position a mentor program to identify resources, priorities and specific groups or individuals in a coalition of champions.

To build a diverse wide network of champions to support a variety of perspectives, it is important to identify individuals and groups who can contribute a range of resources, are versatile, and have the ability to pivot when changes need to occur. However, it is equally important that the determined coalition of champions are in alignment with the vision and the mission of the mentorship program. A mentorship program coalition of champions may support inclusive and sustainable programing and increase the reach of available resources. Further a mentorship coalition is especially relevant to match appropriate mentors and mentees and provide a unique mentor experience for the mentee for lifelong learning and professional development.

The next aspect of strategic planning is the development and implementation of a pilot program. A mentorship pilot program is needed on a small scale to determine feasibility. Mentorship pilot programs are required to collect outcomes to evaluate for expansion and improvements. Additionally, if funding is required to sustain or build the mentorship program for expansion, these primary outcomes are needed to secure internal or external grant funding.

Allied health science programs may find available resources for a mentorship program through their human resource department, professional organizations, or government agencies. One example of a successful student research mentorship program was published in the Journal of Dental Hygiene in 2025. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) This student research mentorship program partnered with the Writing Enrichment Curriculum to develop assignments and rubrics to improve student writing. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) This student research mentorship program not only implemented standardized assignments and grading rubrics across the curriculum but also resulted in eight student-led peer-reviewed publications between the years 2019-2023. (Reibel & Arnett 2025) Although the strategic plan and resources provided in this publication are specific to an allied oral health science program, (Reibel & Arnett 2025) the information is transferable to any allied health science program for students and can be modified for a faculty mentorship focus.

Conclusion

This blueprint is applicable to formal mentorship for faculty and students. The main framework is transferable and can be modified to match your institution’s strategic plan and goals. It is important to be aware of key components to ensure a humanistic mentor and mentee experience is cultivated. Strategic planning is necessary for developing, implementing, and evaluating a mentorship program. A coalition of champions who share the values of the vision and mission of a formal mentorship program contributes to the overall mentorship program and evaluation of metrics for future modifications and longevity.

Michelle Arnett currently serves as a Tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Primary Dental Care, Division of Dental Hygiene (DH) at the University of Minnesota (UMN) School of Dentistry (SOD). Arnett has 10 years of experience in academics and research at the University of Michigan SOD and the UMN SOD, in addition to 21 years of clinical practice experience. Her areas of research focus are motivational interviewing and periodontology. Arnett has published over 50 peer-review articles and two textbook chapters. Of those 50, 29 are specific her research niche in motivational interviewing and periodontology. The remaining 21 peer-reviewed publications focus on her teaching, student mentee research projects, and faculty and students’ wellness. Arnett has given over 60 presentations; 20 were invited national and international events. In 2023, Arnett received the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) President Centennial Awards for Oral Health Education. This was a one-time award at ADEA’s centennial celebration for an allied dental faculty who has made and continues to make a significant and positive impact on oral health education. Arnett has taught Communications, Periodontology, Leadership, and the Dental Hygiene Care Process: Clinical Application III and IV in the UMN undergraduate DH program and Instructional Strategies, Thesis I and II, and Capstone I-IV in the UMN graduate DH program. Her professional memberships include Sigma Phi Alpha-Nu Chapter, American Dental Hygienists’ Association (ADHA), and the ADEA.

References

Bartle, Emma K., Brandon J. Crivello, Jeri L. Bullock, and Ezinne I. Ogbureke. “Mentorship availability and needs for junior faculty members at the United States and Australian dental schools.” European Journal of Dental Education 24, no. 4 (2020): 790-798.

Frei, Esther, Martina Stamm, and Barbara Buddeberg-Fischer. “Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008.” BMC medical education 10 (2010): 1-14.

Hill, Sarah EM, Wendy L. Ward, A. Seay, and J. Buzenski. “The nature and evolution of the mentoring relationship in academic health centers.” Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings 29, no. 3

Mascarenhas, Faye, Janice Townsend, Paul Caballero, Qingzhao Yu, and Paul L. Fidel Jr. “Student and faculty perspectives of a faculty‐student mentoring programme in a dental school.” European Journal of Dental Education 23, no. 2 (2019): 184-189.

Rabeeah, Zainulabdeen, Jocelid G. Carreno, Janet S. Kinney, and Marita R. Inglehart. “Career motivation and satisfaction of dental hygiene students in associate versus bachelor degree programs: A national survey.” Journal of Dental Education 86, no. 6 (2022): 649-660.

Reibel, Y.G., Jiang, Z., Arnett, M.C. “Mentor Like Minnesota: Outcomes of an undergraduate research mentorship program.” Journal of Dental Hygiene (Online) 99, no. 2 (2025): 48-54.

Stenfors‐Hayes, T., L. E. Lindgren, and S. Tranaeus. “Perspectives on being a mentor for undergraduate dental students.” European Journal of Dental Education 15, no. 3 (2011): 153-158.

Source link

August 11, 2025
Promoting and Sustaining a Growth Mindset in Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

Educators have sought to understand why some students persist in overcoming challenges, while others do not. We present an exploration of growth mindset initiatives as factors that promote persistence and student success in online courses. This exploratory review focuses on the relevant literature, includes practical suggestions for classroom applications in online courses, and indicates avenues for future research.

Online college courses have surged post-COVID-19, but attrition rates remain high. Research highlights resilience, course design, institutional support, and faculty interaction as key factors in student persistence. Yang, Baldwin, and Snelson (2017) found that personal goals, community, family support, and time management were crucial for graduate students, while first-year students had different needs. Despite challenges, universities continue expanding online programs. Building a sense of community and supporting a positive mindset can help students manage stress and persist. Colleges are encouraged to integrate mindset and coping strategies into curricula to support online learners’ success.

This review examines how a growth mindset helps students persist despite challenges. Practical strategies are discussed to support students in managing stress and completing online classes. Research highlights the role of mindset, grit, and resilience in achieving long-term goals, though further study is needed. A growth mindset acts as a protective factor during stressful times, fostering confidence and adaptability. Crum et al. (2017) found that viewing stress as enhancing, not debilitating, improves positive affect and cognitive flexibility.

Literature

Selecting credible sources requires considering peer-review status, impact factor, publication date, and current trends. This exploratory review examined scholarly articles for accuracy, credibility, and methodological soundness, using databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, ABI Inform, and EBSCO. Including related works provides context, helping readers understand the connection between a growth mindset and college student persistence.

Mindset

Students with a growth mindset believe intelligence can improve through effort rather than innate talent (Dweck 2000, 2017; Hudig et al. 2022; Tirri and Kujala 2016; Yeager and Walton 2011). Dweck (2006) established a clear link between mindset and achievement, emphasizing that a growth mindset requires support from educators to develop necessary skills. Faculty can enhance motivation by reinforcing mastery, normalizing struggles, and providing resources (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Dweck 2017).

A fixed mindset is the belief that intelligence is unchangeable, leading to feelings of inadequacy and limited problem-solving abilities (Jegathesan et al. 2016; King 2017; Lee et al. 2018; O’Keefe et al. 2018). Karwowski (2014) found that a fixed mindset correlates with lower problem-solving skills. According to Yeager et al. (2019, 364), “the brain is like a muscle that grows stronger and smarter when it undergoes rigorous learning experiences.” This provides a relevant picture of the importance of a growth mindset.

Theoretical

A growth mindset, linked to student persistence, enables learners to set realistic goals and overcome challenges, viewing intelligence as malleable through effort rather than innate talent (Dweck 2006). This mindset encourages risk-taking and learning from mistakes rather than fearing failure. Research shows that resilience, grit, and a growth mindset positively impact learning (Calo et al. 2019). Fostering a growth mindset in college supports persistence by promoting adaptive, exploratory behaviors. A growth mindset can be a protective factor that enables college students to succeed during their educational journeys.

Authors’ Perspectives & Practical Classroom Applications

This exploration was an attempt to determine how growth mindset can help students persist in college online classes. Online classroom implications are significant. Regardless of what traits students bring to the classroom, instructors have an opportunity to facilitate and promote a growth mindset in their interactions with students. By focusing on opportunities to embrace change, normalize struggles, foster growth, and improve processes, instructors can help students to feel motivated, empowered, and able to overcome obstacles.

Instructors should provide resources such as tips on approaching tasks or advice about searching for solutions when stuck. This helps foster independence by teaching problem-solving skills that can be applied more broadly throughout life’s challenges and generalized outside of academia. Additionally, open communication between students and instructors allows for questions and comments without judgment. Students feel safe expressing themselves, leading to greater understanding and acceptance that struggle is part of the growth process, fostering a culture of belonging and inclusion in the classroom. Online instructors must be mindful as they compose feedback to promote a sense of purpose and potential growth.

Instructors promote growth mindset by helping students find meaningful value in what they are doing. They can encourage students to overcome obstacles and be resourceful. Ultimately, instructors can steer students away from the tendency to accept a fixed mindset and be willing to embrace challenges as opportunities to expand student thinking and accept that difficulties are part of learning. Instructors should emphasize that mistakes are necessary to achieve success. Sharing personal struggles and stories allows students to see that everyone has challenges in college, even their instructors. Acknowledging setbacks as opportunities instead of focusing on forms of perceived punishment reinforces the idea that effort will ultimately pay off with tangible results down the line, even if it does not happen immediately.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should examine other variables to determine the impact of creating a growth mindset culture in the classroom. Exploring how faculty mindsets mediate students’ success has been demonstrated in middle school (Schmidt et al. 2015). Haimovitz and Dweck concluded, “We also know little about how children themselves may affect socializers’ theories and behaviors. Examining these bidirectional processes will benefit our understanding of how a culture of growth can be developed and sustained” (2017, 1856). Little is known about the bidirectional processes of online instructors with their adult students.

Conclusions and Limitations

Since this review was exploratory, the findings were not generalized. The existing research may not represent all college students; that was not the goal. However, scholarly, primary, peer-reviewed studies were carefully selected for methodological soundness, validity, strength, and currency. Although research on growth mindset has been studied across domains and countries, few studies have included faculty mindsets. Another limitation is the lack of statistical strength.

Another limitation of this review is that past research may or may not apply to future students. Recent developments regarding COVID-19 and how it may have impacted students in online college education are just beginning to appear in scholarly databases. Many students who prefer traditional classrooms may opt to enroll in online programs because they view such programs as safer, healthier alternatives. Researchers need to learn how this change in a student’s sense of “normal” impacts the mindset of future students, at least for the foreseeable future.

Instructors forced into online education may have brought new ideas and/or confusion that could impact how online students were taught. It can be argued that there is limited or no research that has studied the impacts on students when the instructor and the students find themselves in an unexpected situation, like the unexpected worldwide pandemic.

Technology has allowed online education to grow and expand in ways that were not expected 20 years ago. Students start college with great expectations, and many of those expectations have been changed by the reality of college in an online environment. This exploratory review has presented some considerations for instructors to encourage students to develop and sustain a growth mindset and remain in their academic program. This may provide ways to help students grow as individuals while addressing the multiple demands of work and family since the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Dora C.D. Finamore joined Purdue University Global in 2004 and currently serves as a full-time instructor in the School and Business and Information Technology. She has 25 years’ experience in private practice as a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor. Dora earned her EdD in Counseling Psychology from the University of Sarasota and has been a professor of Business and Psychology for 21 years. She serves as a contributing editor for Journal of Education and Learning. Dora’s current research interests are in the areas of motivation, learning strategies, LGBTQ+ cultures, belonging, resilience, and growth and fixed mindset in business and education.

E. Valerie Hewitt joined Purdue University Global, in 2007 and currently is an adjunct instructor in the School of Business and Information Technology. She has over 30 years’ combined online and traditional classroom teaching experience. Valerie holds a Master’s Degree in Education from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and a Master’s Degree in Higher Education with a secondary in psychology from Kaplan University. Her current research interests are in the areas of the retention of first-year online students and early engagement strategies.

Loretta “Laurie” A. Millam joined Purdue University Global in 2002 and currently serves as a Department Chair in the School of Business and Management. She has over 25 years’ combined experience in education. Prior to entering the education field, Loretta worked in Business Management for over 11 years. Loretta holds an MBA from St. Ambrose University and an EdS from Northcentral University. Loretta’s current research interests are in the areas of first-term student retention and early engagement learning strategies.

Michelle M. Reinhardt joined Purdue University Global as a full-time instructor in 2003 and currently serves as a course lead and faculty mentor in the school of Business and Information Technology. Michelle has over 25 years of combined online and traditional classroom teaching experience. She has designed courses, served on various college and university committees, and conducted online faculty workshops as well. Michelle holds a Master’s Degree in Communication Arts/English from Western Colorado University. Her current research interests are in the areas of entrepreneurship, motivation, and student learning and engagement.

Linda S. Watson joined Purdue University Global in 2006 and currently teaches First Term Experience classes in the School of Business and Information Technology. Linda has an MBA from Baker College with a double major in Leadership Studies and Human Resource Management. Her current research interests include the areas of student success and engagement, particularly for first-term students.

References

Calo, Marlena, Casey Peiris, Lucy Chipchase, Felicity Blackstock, and Belinda Judd. 2019. “Grit, Resilience and Mindset in Health Students.” The Clinical Teacher 16(4), 317-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13056.

Crum, Alia J., Modupe Akinola, Ashley Martin, and Sean Fath. 2017. “The Role of Stress Mindset in Shaping Cognitive, Emotional, and Physiological Responses to Challenging and Threatening Stress.” Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 30 (4): 379–95. doi:10.1080/10615806.2016.1275585.

Dweck, Carol S. 2000. “Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development.” Psychology Press.

Dweck, Carol S. 2006. “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.” Random House.

Dweck, Carol S. 2017. “From Needs to Goals and Representations: Foundations for a Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development.” Psychological Review 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082.

Dweck, Carol S., and Ellen L. Leggett. 1988. “A Social-cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality.” Psychological Review 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.

Haimovitz, Kyla., and Carol S. Dweck. 2017. “The Origins of Children’s Growth and Fixed Mindsets: New Research and a New Proposal.” Child Development 88(6), 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955.

Hudig, Job, Ad W. A. Scheepers, Michaéla C. Schippers, and Guus Smeets. 2022. “Motivational Mindsets, Mindset Churn and Academic Performance: The Role of a Goal-setting Intervention and Purpose in Life.” Current Psychology 42 (27): 23349–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03462-8.

Jegathesan, Mithila, Yaffa M. Vitberg, and Martin V. Pusic. 2016. “A Survey of Mindset Theories of Intelligence and Medical Error Self-reporting among Pediatric House Staff and Faculty.” BMC Medical Education 16, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0574-8.

Karwowski, Maciej. 2014. “Creative Mindsets: Measurement, Correlates, Consequences.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898.

King, Ronnel B. 2017. “A Fixed Mindset Leads to Negative Affect: The Relations between Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Subjective Well-being.” Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 225(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000290.

Lee, C. Christopher, Jacqueline Trahan, Peter Maltby, Venessa Hemraj, and Heidi Hughes. 2018. “Mindset, Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement at Workplace: Preliminary Results.” Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI) 640–659. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=32621573-85d0-36bf-9aaa-7caf0d256b8b.

O’Keefe, Paul A., Carol Dweck, and Greg Walton. (2018). “Having a Growth Mindset makes it Easier to Develop New Interests.” Harvard Business Review Digital Articles 8–13. https://hbr.org/2018/09/having-a-growth-mindset-makes-it-easier-to-develop-new-interests

Schmidt, Jennifer A., Lee Shumow, and Hayal Kackar-Cam. 2015. “Exploring Teacher Effects for Mindset Intervention Outcomes in Seventh-Grade Science Classes.” Middle Grades Research Journal 10 (2): 17–32. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=4d677331-010f-3bc1-8e5b-78d2973d7bc5.

Tirri, Kirsi and Teija Kujala. 2016. ”Students’ Mindsets for Learning and their Neural Underpinnings.” Psychology 7(9), 1231-1239. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.79125.

Yang, Dazhi, Sally Baldwin, and Chareen Snelson. 2017. “Persistence Factors Revealed: Students’ Reflections on Completing a Fully Online Program.” Distance Education 38 (1): 23–36. doi:10.1080/01587919.2017.1299561.

Yeager, David S., Paul Hanselman, Gregory M. Walton, et al. 2019. “A National Experiment Reveals where a Growth Mindset Improves Achievement.” Nature 573, 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y.

Yeager, David S., and Gregory M. Walton. (2011). “Social-psychological Interventions in Education: They’re not Magic.” Review of Educational Research 81(2), 267–301.

Source link

August 8, 2025
Promoting and Sustaining a Growth Mindset in Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

Educators have sought to understand why some students persist in overcoming challenges, while others do not. We present an exploration of growth mindset initiatives as factors that promote persistence and student success in online courses. This exploratory review focuses on the relevant literature, includes practical suggestions for classroom applications in online courses, and indicates avenues for future research.

Online college courses have surged post-COVID-19, but attrition rates remain high. Research highlights resilience, course design, institutional support, and faculty interaction as key factors in student persistence. Yang, Baldwin, and Snelson (2017) found that personal goals, community, family support, and time management were crucial for graduate students, while first-year students had different needs. Despite challenges, universities continue expanding online programs. Building a sense of community and supporting a positive mindset can help students manage stress and persist. Colleges are encouraged to integrate mindset and coping strategies into curricula to support online learners’ success.

This review examines how a growth mindset helps students persist despite challenges. Practical strategies are discussed to support students in managing stress and completing online classes. Research highlights the role of mindset, grit, and resilience in achieving long-term goals, though further study is needed. A growth mindset acts as a protective factor during stressful times, fostering confidence and adaptability. Crum et al. (2017) found that viewing stress as enhancing, not debilitating, improves positive affect and cognitive flexibility.

Literature

Selecting credible sources requires considering peer-review status, impact factor, publication date, and current trends. This exploratory review examined scholarly articles for accuracy, credibility, and methodological soundness, using databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, ABI Inform, and EBSCO. Including related works provides context, helping readers understand the connection between a growth mindset and college student persistence.

Mindset

Students with a growth mindset believe intelligence can improve through effort rather than innate talent (Dweck 2000, 2017; Hudig et al. 2022; Tirri and Kujala 2016; Yeager and Walton 2011). Dweck (2006) established a clear link between mindset and achievement, emphasizing that a growth mindset requires support from educators to develop necessary skills. Faculty can enhance motivation by reinforcing mastery, normalizing struggles, and providing resources (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Dweck 2017).

A fixed mindset is the belief that intelligence is unchangeable, leading to feelings of inadequacy and limited problem-solving abilities (Jegathesan et al. 2016; King 2017; Lee et al. 2018; O’Keefe et al. 2018). Karwowski (2014) found that a fixed mindset correlates with lower problem-solving skills. According to Yeager et al. (2019, 364), “the brain is like a muscle that grows stronger and smarter when it undergoes rigorous learning experiences.” This provides a relevant picture of the importance of a growth mindset.

Theoretical

A growth mindset, linked to student persistence, enables learners to set realistic goals and overcome challenges, viewing intelligence as malleable through effort rather than innate talent (Dweck 2006). This mindset encourages risk-taking and learning from mistakes rather than fearing failure. Research shows that resilience, grit, and a growth mindset positively impact learning (Calo et al. 2019). Fostering a growth mindset in college supports persistence by promoting adaptive, exploratory behaviors. A growth mindset can be a protective factor that enables college students to succeed during their educational journeys.

Authors’ Perspectives & Practical Classroom Applications

This exploration was an attempt to determine how growth mindset can help students persist in college online classes. Online classroom implications are significant. Regardless of what traits students bring to the classroom, instructors have an opportunity to facilitate and promote a growth mindset in their interactions with students. By focusing on opportunities to embrace change, normalize struggles, foster growth, and improve processes, instructors can help students to feel motivated, empowered, and able to overcome obstacles.

Instructors should provide resources such as tips on approaching tasks or advice about searching for solutions when stuck. This helps foster independence by teaching problem-solving skills that can be applied more broadly throughout life’s challenges and generalized outside of academia. Additionally, open communication between students and instructors allows for questions and comments without judgment. Students feel safe expressing themselves, leading to greater understanding and acceptance that struggle is part of the growth process, fostering a culture of belonging and inclusion in the classroom. Online instructors must be mindful as they compose feedback to promote a sense of purpose and potential growth.

Instructors promote growth mindset by helping students find meaningful value in what they are doing. They can encourage students to overcome obstacles and be resourceful. Ultimately, instructors can steer students away from the tendency to accept a fixed mindset and be willing to embrace challenges as opportunities to expand student thinking and accept that difficulties are part of learning. Instructors should emphasize that mistakes are necessary to achieve success. Sharing personal struggles and stories allows students to see that everyone has challenges in college, even their instructors. Acknowledging setbacks as opportunities instead of focusing on forms of perceived punishment reinforces the idea that effort will ultimately pay off with tangible results down the line, even if it does not happen immediately.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should examine other variables to determine the impact of creating a growth mindset culture in the classroom. Exploring how faculty mindsets mediate students’ success has been demonstrated in middle school (Schmidt et al. 2015). Haimovitz and Dweck concluded, “We also know little about how children themselves may affect socializers’ theories and behaviors. Examining these bidirectional processes will benefit our understanding of how a culture of growth can be developed and sustained” (2017, 1856). Little is known about the bidirectional processes of online instructors with their adult students.

Conclusions and Limitations

Since this review was exploratory, the findings were not generalized. The existing research may not represent all college students; that was not the goal. However, scholarly, primary, peer-reviewed studies were carefully selected for methodological soundness, validity, strength, and currency. Although research on growth mindset has been studied across domains and countries, few studies have included faculty mindsets. Another limitation is the lack of statistical strength.

Another limitation of this review is that past research may or may not apply to future students. Recent developments regarding COVID-19 and how it may have impacted students in online college education are just beginning to appear in scholarly databases. Many students who prefer traditional classrooms may opt to enroll in online programs because they view such programs as safer, healthier alternatives. Researchers need to learn how this change in a student’s sense of “normal” impacts the mindset of future students, at least for the foreseeable future.

Instructors forced into online education may have brought new ideas and/or confusion that could impact how online students were taught. It can be argued that there is limited or no research that has studied the impacts on students when the instructor and the students find themselves in an unexpected situation, like the unexpected worldwide pandemic.

Technology has allowed online education to grow and expand in ways that were not expected 20 years ago. Students start college with great expectations, and many of those expectations have been changed by the reality of college in an online environment. This exploratory review has presented some considerations for instructors to encourage students to develop and sustain a growth mindset and remain in their academic program. This may provide ways to help students grow as individuals while addressing the multiple demands of work and family since the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Dora C.D. Finamore joined Purdue University Global in 2004 and currently serves as a full-time instructor in the School and Business and Information Technology. She has 25 years’ experience in private practice as a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor. Dora earned her EdD in Counseling Psychology from the University of Sarasota and has been a professor of Business and Psychology for 21 years. She serves as a contributing editor for Journal of Education and Learning. Dora’s current research interests are in the areas of motivation, learning strategies, LGBTQ+ cultures, belonging, resilience, and growth and fixed mindset in business and education.

E. Valerie Hewitt joined Purdue University Global, in 2007 and currently is an adjunct instructor in the School of Business and Information Technology. She has over 30 years’ combined online and traditional classroom teaching experience. Valerie holds a Master’s Degree in Education from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and a Master’s Degree in Higher Education with a secondary in psychology from Kaplan University. Her current research interests are in the areas of the retention of first-year online students and early engagement strategies.

Loretta “Laurie” A. Millam joined Purdue University Global in 2002 and currently serves as a Department Chair in the School of Business and Management. She has over 25 years’ combined experience in education. Prior to entering the education field, Loretta worked in Business Management for over 11 years. Loretta holds an MBA from St. Ambrose University and an EdS from Northcentral University. Loretta’s current research interests are in the areas of first-term student retention and early engagement learning strategies.

Michelle M. Reinhardt joined Purdue University Global as a full-time instructor in 2003 and currently serves as a course lead and faculty mentor in the school of Business and Information Technology. Michelle has over 25 years of combined online and traditional classroom teaching experience. She has designed courses, served on various college and university committees, and conducted online faculty workshops as well. Michelle holds a Master’s Degree in Communication Arts/English from Western Colorado University. Her current research interests are in the areas of entrepreneurship, motivation, and student learning and engagement.

Linda S. Watson joined Purdue University Global in 2006 and currently teaches First Term Experience classes in the School of Business and Information Technology. Linda has an MBA from Baker College with a double major in Leadership Studies and Human Resource Management. Her current research interests include the areas of student success and engagement, particularly for first-term students.

References

Calo, Marlena, Casey Peiris, Lucy Chipchase, Felicity Blackstock, and Belinda Judd. 2019. “Grit, Resilience and Mindset in Health Students.” The Clinical Teacher 16(4), 317-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13056.

Crum, Alia J., Modupe Akinola, Ashley Martin, and Sean Fath. 2017. “The Role of Stress Mindset in Shaping Cognitive, Emotional, and Physiological Responses to Challenging and Threatening Stress.” Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 30 (4): 379–95. doi:10.1080/10615806.2016.1275585.

Dweck, Carol S. 2000. “Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development.” Psychology Press.

Dweck, Carol S. 2006. “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.” Random House.

Dweck, Carol S. 2017. “From Needs to Goals and Representations: Foundations for a Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development.” Psychological Review 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082.

Dweck, Carol S., and Ellen L. Leggett. 1988. “A Social-cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality.” Psychological Review 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.

Haimovitz, Kyla., and Carol S. Dweck. 2017. “The Origins of Children’s Growth and Fixed Mindsets: New Research and a New Proposal.” Child Development 88(6), 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955.

Hudig, Job, Ad W. A. Scheepers, Michaéla C. Schippers, and Guus Smeets. 2022. “Motivational Mindsets, Mindset Churn and Academic Performance: The Role of a Goal-setting Intervention and Purpose in Life.” Current Psychology 42 (27): 23349–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03462-8.

Jegathesan, Mithila, Yaffa M. Vitberg, and Martin V. Pusic. 2016. “A Survey of Mindset Theories of Intelligence and Medical Error Self-reporting among Pediatric House Staff and Faculty.” BMC Medical Education 16, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0574-8.

Karwowski, Maciej. 2014. “Creative Mindsets: Measurement, Correlates, Consequences.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898.

King, Ronnel B. 2017. “A Fixed Mindset Leads to Negative Affect: The Relations between Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Subjective Well-being.” Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 225(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000290.

Lee, C. Christopher, Jacqueline Trahan, Peter Maltby, Venessa Hemraj, and Heidi Hughes. 2018. “Mindset, Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement at Workplace: Preliminary Results.” Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI) 640–659. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=32621573-85d0-36bf-9aaa-7caf0d256b8b.

O’Keefe, Paul A., Carol Dweck, and Greg Walton. (2018). “Having a Growth Mindset makes it Easier to Develop New Interests.” Harvard Business Review Digital Articles 8–13. https://hbr.org/2018/09/having-a-growth-mindset-makes-it-easier-to-develop-new-interests

Schmidt, Jennifer A., Lee Shumow, and Hayal Kackar-Cam. 2015. “Exploring Teacher Effects for Mindset Intervention Outcomes in Seventh-Grade Science Classes.” Middle Grades Research Journal 10 (2): 17–32. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=4d677331-010f-3bc1-8e5b-78d2973d7bc5.

Tirri, Kirsi and Teija Kujala. 2016. ”Students’ Mindsets for Learning and their Neural Underpinnings.” Psychology 7(9), 1231-1239. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.79125.

Yang, Dazhi, Sally Baldwin, and Chareen Snelson. 2017. “Persistence Factors Revealed: Students’ Reflections on Completing a Fully Online Program.” Distance Education 38 (1): 23–36. doi:10.1080/01587919.2017.1299561.

Yeager, David S., Paul Hanselman, Gregory M. Walton, et al. 2019. “A National Experiment Reveals where a Growth Mindset Improves Achievement.” Nature 573, 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y.

Yeager, David S., and Gregory M. Walton. (2011). “Social-psychological Interventions in Education: They’re not Magic.” Review of Educational Research 81(2), 267–301.

Source link

August 8, 2025
Beyond Digital Literacy: Cultivating “Meta AI” Skills in Students and Faculty – Faculty Focus
Imagine a classroom where AI helps students learn more effectively and faculty have more time to focus on what they do best. That future is closer than you think, thanks to the rise of generative AI. Higher education professionals find themselves in a new world with these emerging tools and their capacity to dramatically change how everyone thinks and learns. There are crucial questions arising on the appropriateness of AI and their impact on thinking, creativity, and intellectual property.

Unlike many instructors, the students in our classrooms are “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) who have known, used, and relied on technology their whole lives. Often, however, this leads to faulty assumptions about what these students know and can do. Although they are typically fluent and comfortable with technology tools, they are not always able to be metacognitive about how and why they use them and how that use can benefit or impede their learning.

Additionally, generative artificial intelligence cannot be viewed as just another technology “tool.” Its breadth of use is unlike any prior technological development. Unfettered and uncritical use of generative AI by students will certainly affect learning gains and outcomes. We cannot assume that students will learn how to ethically and critically use AI without overt instruction and modeling. As a result, responsibility lies with all instructors to consider how and when they can allow students to use AI in their coursework. Instructors should model what that looks like, what tools are most reliable, and how students can cite and acknowledge AI use. Only through discipline-specific modeling can students gain the “meta AI” ability to make future determinations about responsible use of the tools.

Initial data suggests that faculty and students are experiencing ambiguity and need training to fully understand AI (Petricini et al., 2024). Once faculty comprehend the possibilities of this technology, they can, in turn, model and teach appropriate use to their students. Similar to metacognition, where individuals monitor and manage their own cognitive processes, higher education has a responsibility to help students develop meta AI skills to monitor and manage AI usage. This responsibility presents both opportunities and concerns. As instructors navigate those with a balance of curiosity and humility, some examples may help.

Instructors can:
- Experiment with using AI as a tool to give student feedback. Upload assignment instructions, a rubric, and sample work, and ask AI to provide feedback.
- Explore different prompts and the range of output it generates.
- Think like a student to assess the appropriateness of the feedback and its value to student learning.
- Put the onus on the student. Ask students to explain a concept they are learning and to provide an example to an AI tool and allow the AI to provide feedback.
- Evaluate how well AI supports student understanding. Students can also share the output with faculty thus providing another opportunity for faculty to “see” student thinking and to provide feedback.
After experimenting, bring this experience into the classroom and discuss with students what you learned, where it can be helpful, and areas to avoid using AI. Overtly model how you used it and your evaluation of that use. When appropriate, consider creating a discipline-specific guide for fellow faculty and students on what generative AI is, when to use it, and its potential and drawbacks in your field of study.

Another avenue to developing meta AI skills is to view it from a lens of scholarly teaching. Are there aspects of your teaching that can be improved by its use? How can AI be used to save time and provide valuable information to support learning? AI can be integrated into large-enrollment courses to provide immediate and ongoing feedback on assignments that are extremely time-consuming for one professor to grade. In professional programs, AI can be designed to simulate patients, allowing students to practice initial communication skills prior to their first clinical experiences. In online courses, these tools can be created to simulate classmates, and online students can have real-time discussions or engage in other active learning techniques such as think, pair, share that were not possible before. Modeling how decisions are made regarding the use and integration of AI is a first step for novice users in developing meta ai skills.

Finally, it is imperative that faculty work actively to identify and address when students use AI tools in unauthorized ways. If an instructor disallows AI and students use it anyway with no comment or consequence, they receive the message that AI-generated work is undetectable and acceptable. Any feedback the instructor gives on that work is not feedback on the students’ knowledge and abilities, yet students can misinterpret that feedback to mean that the AI use was an appropriate and successful choice. This is counter to the goal of meta AI and helping students understand how to ethically and responsibly use AI without interfering with their own learning.

As faculty proceed through this new era of education, we must both challenge ourselves to learn, grow, and adapt to the possibilities of generative AI while also relying on what we know about learning and student success. To kickstart this journey, consider taking the following initial steps: Attend workshops or training sessions on AI technology, collaborate with colleagues to share insights and strategies, and integrate AI tools into your curriculum incrementally. As students move through the education process and into the world of work, they must develop intrinsic motivation and metacognitive skills to maximize their chances of success. Those metacognitive skills now must also embrace a meta AI ability so that our future professionals can harness the tools in responsible ways that don’t interfere with all they need to learn and know for themselves.

Kelly Ahuna, PhD, is the Director of the Office of Academic Integrity at the University at Buffalo (UB). Faculty for 20 years, Kelly first ran an undergraduate critical thinking program and later worked with graduate teacher candidates on curriculum and instruction. Her overarching interest in student and teacher success led her to the growing field of academic integrity work and her current role as the inaugural director at UB where she has developed policy and procedures, established a robust remediation process, and co-founded the ICAI Northeast Regional Consortium. Kelly holds a bachelor’s degree in English with secondary teacher certification from Dickinson College, a master’s degree in higher education administration from the University of Vermont, and a doctoral degree in sociology of education from UB.

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.

References

Petricini, T., Wu, C., & Zipf, S. (2024). Perceptions about artificial intelligence and chatGPT use by faculty and students. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 17(2), 63-87. https://doi.org/10.26209/td2024vol17iss21825

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5) Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Source link
August 6, 2025
Life vs. Education: The Empath Edition – Faculty Focus
After some 21 years teaching online in the University system, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no absolute one thing that has more emphasis for student success than others, except life. I’ve tried course corrections (Navy); revisions to materials ad infinitum (at Vol. 74); communications efforts that has the FCC asking for advice; Soft Skills efforts that has made the Work Force smile; and, writing skills tactics that would make Edgar Allen Poe begin ‘raven’ over these efforts! There are many theoretical foundations for these noted items, and more. Let me say it this way: online students on the other end of the wire encounter life before they encounter educational requirements.

You might argue that this is not very applicable to helping students; until you sincerely begin to see them as they experience events in their lives. A few examples: I wonder why some students won’t communicate regularly only to find out that they are working two jobs, or have lost family, or they are afraid to ask for help (yes, even that!). I have had several military graduate students who are dealing with PTSD, and as a Navy Veteran myself, I understand how difficult it can be to open up and share such things with your “instructor.” And, some students simply struggle to balance life while achieving the educational goal of their dreams. Enter empathy.

Empathy theories¹ explore how we understand and respond to the emotions and experiences of others. Researchers might refer to this last statement as phenomenological, or the lived experiences of individuals. I simply call it helping students where they are. It goes beyond the notion of being open and accessible, to being inquisitive about my students—not prying, invasive, or demanding—but a healthy dose of empathy. The type of empathy that allows your students to open themselves up to others—namely, their instructor! Sounds dangerous? Consider the alternative.

A military officer, who had served in a hostile environment, was an excellent writer, thinker, organizer, and student. At the outset of the course, I had noticed that his signature file had a photo of him in uniform. I put on the empathy hat and commented on military experiences, and opened the door for him to share his own. That’s when I heard an amazing story of loss, hurt, and fear. The reasons for all of these, I will refrain from noting, but let it suffice to say this: my empathy for him pegged the meter of not only being an instructor to him, but a listener, a sounding-board for him to open up and share what was a hinderance to him. What did this “empathy” do for him? He was able to see that the experiences of his life were not his enemy, and that his time in my class–which was highly important for him in terms of his career—included acceptable discussions of those experiences that allowed him to feel okay to share and release many things he held onto and protected. In other words, while he was struggling with all these life issues, empathy enabled me to help him in many ways to let go of the past, focus on his future plans, and enjoy the learning before him.

Often, if we as teachers would take just that extra moment to open ourselves to listen to our students, it is amazing what we can hear. And once we hear, we can become an empath to enable our students to overcome some of life’s issues that keep them from being able to hold together life, school, work, family, and other things.

You might say, “Isn’t this the job of trained counsellors?” I might counter-opine, “I suppose so, in the Professional sense. But, are we as teachers not a form of counsellor? A potential empath to listen and help as we are able with our students?” Why can’t we as teachers listen significantly more deeply to our students, and actually hear what they are saying? And when we hear their voice in a manner of calling out for help, even in the smallest way, we can empathize with those difficult life times. Stated differently, listen to hear what they are saying!

Here are a few things that I do:
1. I remind my students from day one…if there is anything they need help with, contact me any time of day of night, and always keep me informed of issues that impact their progress.
1. I tell them often that I will leave no one behind, because every student is important to me. Someone in my own past classes assisted me by listening and helping, which made an incalculable mark on my life, and I will pay that debt as long as I teach.
1. Not only do I use email, I offer to call, text, use semaphore, carrier pigeon, or whatever it takes to get the “Comms, 5×5”² so we can chat and solve issues they face.
1. If an assignment is late and the student tells me that “the dog ate my paper”, I respond, “Well, tell me all about it!” [Proper Empathy Applied!]
1. I allow, after evaluation of work submitted, students to resubmit work. This is early in the semester so that they can readily see how the work is to be submitted, i.e., APA, grammar, other details. Why? Because if I wanted perfection, I might consider leaving the profession of teaching—as there are no absolute perfect outcomes in the world (my own empathy at work here).
1. I allow my students to give me feedback in real-time. Say what? Why do this? Because sometimes I hear frustration in the learning process, and if I allow them to tell me what’s on their minds (properly done), I can hear what I need to do to help them individually, and often, collectively. Empathy at work!
1. And finally, unless there is a major, serious issue at work, I let my defenses down and find humorous ways to release tension, even as I am doing 1-6 above. Another way to say this is: I don’t crush the objective of “Comms, 5×5” for the sake of getting the job done. Stated even differently: while the work is important, empathy helps me to treat my students as learners, not as “briefcase experts!”
So, when students struggle, I care as probably the vast majority of my co-teachers/professors do. But, walking that extra mile with them, for them, and applying empathy…we can make a huge difference in their lives for the rest of their lives if we but take the time to listen, hear, and be proactive FOR them! Why teach or lead or strive to move the status quo forward in the lives of people and/or a nation? We are but one end of the wire in online instruction, and lest we forget, the other end is our purpose for teaching! Therefore, let empathy—alongside your/my credentials and experiences—help our students to release their apprehension, fears, and worries about the success in our respective classes.

Lastly, while there are numerous theories of empathy, let us be the applied part of those theories. Our students will be the recipients for a lifetime!

Dr. Kenneth E. Scott, EdD, taught in the community college setting for 32 years and is now in his 21st year in the university setting. He continues to teach at Amridge University, a primarily online institution. He has been teaching online for 30 years and has a background in electrical engineering, systems design/software engineering, and business leadership and technology. He also served 11 years in the U.S. Navy.
Source link
August 4, 2025
Life vs. Education: The Empath Edition – Faculty Focus
After some 21 years teaching online in the University system, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no absolute one thing that has more emphasis for student success than others, except life. I’ve tried course corrections (Navy); revisions to materials ad infinitum (at Vol. 74); communications efforts that has the FCC asking for advice; Soft Skills efforts that has made the Work Force smile; and, writing skills tactics that would make Edgar Allen Poe begin ‘raven’ over these efforts! There are many theoretical foundations for these noted items, and more. Let me say it this way: online students on the other end of the wire encounter life before they encounter educational requirements.

You might argue that this is not very applicable to helping students; until you sincerely begin to see them as they experience events in their lives. A few examples: I wonder why some students won’t communicate regularly only to find out that they are working two jobs, or have lost family, or they are afraid to ask for help (yes, even that!). I have had several military graduate students who are dealing with PTSD, and as a Navy Veteran myself, I understand how difficult it can be to open up and share such things with your “instructor.” And, some students simply struggle to balance life while achieving the educational goal of their dreams. Enter empathy.

Empathy theories¹ explore how we understand and respond to the emotions and experiences of others. Researchers might refer to this last statement as phenomenological, or the lived experiences of individuals. I simply call it helping students where they are. It goes beyond the notion of being open and accessible, to being inquisitive about my students—not prying, invasive, or demanding—but a healthy dose of empathy. The type of empathy that allows your students to open themselves up to others—namely, their instructor! Sounds dangerous? Consider the alternative.

A military officer, who had served in a hostile environment, was an excellent writer, thinker, organizer, and student. At the outset of the course, I had noticed that his signature file had a photo of him in uniform. I put on the empathy hat and commented on military experiences, and opened the door for him to share his own. That’s when I heard an amazing story of loss, hurt, and fear. The reasons for all of these, I will refrain from noting, but let it suffice to say this: my empathy for him pegged the meter of not only being an instructor to him, but a listener, a sounding-board for him to open up and share what was a hinderance to him. What did this “empathy” do for him? He was able to see that the experiences of his life were not his enemy, and that his time in my class–which was highly important for him in terms of his career—included acceptable discussions of those experiences that allowed him to feel okay to share and release many things he held onto and protected. In other words, while he was struggling with all these life issues, empathy enabled me to help him in many ways to let go of the past, focus on his future plans, and enjoy the learning before him.

Often, if we as teachers would take just that extra moment to open ourselves to listen to our students, it is amazing what we can hear. And once we hear, we can become an empath to enable our students to overcome some of life’s issues that keep them from being able to hold together life, school, work, family, and other things.

You might say, “Isn’t this the job of trained counsellors?” I might counter-opine, “I suppose so, in the Professional sense. But, are we as teachers not a form of counsellor? A potential empath to listen and help as we are able with our students?” Why can’t we as teachers listen significantly more deeply to our students, and actually hear what they are saying? And when we hear their voice in a manner of calling out for help, even in the smallest way, we can empathize with those difficult life times. Stated differently, listen to hear what they are saying!

Here are a few things that I do:
1. I remind my students from day one…if there is anything they need help with, contact me any time of day of night, and always keep me informed of issues that impact their progress.
1. I tell them often that I will leave no one behind, because every student is important to me. Someone in my own past classes assisted me by listening and helping, which made an incalculable mark on my life, and I will pay that debt as long as I teach.
1. Not only do I use email, I offer to call, text, use semaphore, carrier pigeon, or whatever it takes to get the “Comms, 5×5”² so we can chat and solve issues they face.
1. If an assignment is late and the student tells me that “the dog ate my paper”, I respond, “Well, tell me all about it!” [Proper Empathy Applied!]
1. I allow, after evaluation of work submitted, students to resubmit work. This is early in the semester so that they can readily see how the work is to be submitted, i.e., APA, grammar, other details. Why? Because if I wanted perfection, I might consider leaving the profession of teaching—as there are no absolute perfect outcomes in the world (my own empathy at work here).
1. I allow my students to give me feedback in real-time. Say what? Why do this? Because sometimes I hear frustration in the learning process, and if I allow them to tell me what’s on their minds (properly done), I can hear what I need to do to help them individually, and often, collectively. Empathy at work!
1. And finally, unless there is a major, serious issue at work, I let my defenses down and find humorous ways to release tension, even as I am doing 1-6 above. Another way to say this is: I don’t crush the objective of “Comms, 5×5” for the sake of getting the job done. Stated even differently: while the work is important, empathy helps me to treat my students as learners, not as “briefcase experts!”
So, when students struggle, I care as probably the vast majority of my co-teachers/professors do. But, walking that extra mile with them, for them, and applying empathy…we can make a huge difference in their lives for the rest of their lives if we but take the time to listen, hear, and be proactive FOR them! Why teach or lead or strive to move the status quo forward in the lives of people and/or a nation? We are but one end of the wire in online instruction, and lest we forget, the other end is our purpose for teaching! Therefore, let empathy—alongside your/my credentials and experiences—help our students to release their apprehension, fears, and worries about the success in our respective classes.

Lastly, while there are numerous theories of empathy, let us be the applied part of those theories. Our students will be the recipients for a lifetime!

Dr. Kenneth E. Scott, EdD, taught in the community college setting for 32 years and is now in his 21st year in the university setting. He continues to teach at Amridge University, a primarily online institution. He has been teaching online for 30 years and has a background in electrical engineering, systems design/software engineering, and business leadership and technology. He also served 11 years in the U.S. Navy.
Source link
August 4, 2025