Author: Elizabeth

This article first appeared in the Teaching Professor on May 17, 2017. © Magna Publications. All rights reserved. 

I continue to worry that we devalue the affective dimensions of teaching—the emotional energy it takes to keep delivering high-quality instruction.

Most faculty are on solid ground in terms of expertise. We know and, in most cases, love our content. We don’t get tired of it—oh, maybe we do a bit in those foundation courses, but the content isn’t what wears us down; it’s the daily grind, having to be there every class session, not just physically present but mentally and emotionally engaged as well. Good teaching requires more energy than we think it does.

I’m posting this because it is the end of the academic year, and many us are feeling tired and used up. That makes it a good time for a gentle reminder: take time to refresh. Whatever time

Here, a relatively simple approach to teaching and checking for student criticality is explained, where conceptual, alongside applied learning, is pervasive. It revolves around a two-directional spotlight approach of scrutinizing practice in the light of theory and scrutinizing theory in the light of experience.

The ability to critically analyze and evaluate is essential for student progression through degree courses. It is a key element in the higher levels of cognitive taxonomy and is reflected as such for sector quality (e,g. in the UK’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, QAA, 2014) and for specific course design (e.g. in the language of learning outcomes for the later stage modules of programs). It is also depicted as a crucial graduate attribute both in terms of being effective citizens in democracy and being effective employees and leaders in modern organizations (Garcia, 2009), especially in the context of corporate social responsibility. Having said this, there

There may be no more serious issue for a student than facing an academic conduct hearing because of plagiarism. This certainly is not part of the expected college experience for students or parents. Faculty, however, often struggle with creating approaches that focus on why and how academic writing and the associated documenting guidelines enhance a student’s ability to communicate their thoughts and ideas.

Rather than focusing first on the negative impacts of not implementing citation guidelines, Moore (2019) confirms students with limited experiences in research writing at the college level will often make mistakes in documentation and attribution. She suggests four strategies to detect writing issues, avoid academic conduct issues, and help improve the student’s ability to avoid recurring mistakes by using “plagiarize-proof” assignments that: 1) evaluate your expectations for student research literacy, 2) include unique or individualized elements into assignments, 3) require an annotated bibliography before the assignment due

What is wrong with grades?

Instructors and students have different ideas about what grades are supposed to measure: Should they be about how much students have learned? How much work they have completed? How well they have mastered the subject? (Arguably, they measure none of these well.) Grades can perpetuate bias, inequalities, and injustice, reduce student motivation and willingness to challenge themselves, and add enormous administrative burdens. No wonder many students and faculty dislike grades!

However, grades are not going away as a tool for evaluation, sorting, and gatekeeping by institutions and employers, and as a measure of success by students. But there is literature on how to adapt the grading process to avoid the drawbacks above, and improve student motivation and engagement, as well as instructor satisfaction. They go by names such as curving, ungrading, contract grading, and specifications grading.

In 2022, I experimented with