What is the most important thing you do in your classroom?

A few years ago, I was out to dinner with a few colleagues and a candidate that we had invited to interview for an open faculty position. Everyone around the table was chatting about the research they do and the latest news and happenings in our respective fields. Then, during a brief lull in the conversation, the candidate asked me a question: “I've heard that you are an award-winning teacher, so would you mind sharing with me what you think is the most important thing you do in your classroom?”

Wow, what a question…one thing that I do, the most important thing I do…let me see…uhm. As I was quickly trying to formulate a response, a million and one possible ideas began running through my mind – use of active learning activities, focus on student-centered teaching strategies, emphasis on helping students learn how to learn, etc. Then, without my mind yet settled on an answer, out came my response: “I think the most important thing that I do is care, really care, about my students.” For a split second I felt like I wanted to take my seemingly primitive, unsophisticated response back and come up with something more impressive and pedagogically robust. But then, my mind seemed to relax and become more comfortable and satisfied with my rather spontaneous response—caring about my students, really caring, IS one of the most important things I do in my classroom. Perhaps my response was intuitive, rather than spontaneous?! The conversation busily continued around teaching and learning and soon dinner was served. However, through the rest of the evening and for many, many days and months to come, I kept thinking about how my response was connected to all the other things I do in my classroom that I also think are important…the list just kept growing. Then it dawned on me: everything good that I do as a teacher begins and ends with caring for my students. And so began my exploration of the scholarly literature about caring in higher education.

In this editorial, I would like to share with you the findings and implications of one of the articles that I came across in my search entitled, “‘If they don't care, I don't care’: Millennial and Generation Z students and the impact of faculty caring” by Miller and Mills (2019).

The Miller and Mills (2019) article begins by affirming the well-established centrality of caring to effective teaching in primary and secondary school settings (e.g., Finn, Schrodt, Witt, Elledge, Jernberg, & Larson, 2009). The article then quickly moves to introducing the more recent scholarship that has begun to call attention to the importance of faculty caring to students’ learning and success in higher education (e.g., Meyers, 2009; Slate, LaPrairie, Schulte, & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). According to Miller and Mills (2019), this interest in the impact of caring faculty in higher education has emerged from both rising efforts to retain an increasingly diverse undergraduate student body and questions regarding the unique perspectives and needs of the newest generations of college students, Millennials and Generation Z. The Millennial and Generation Z students are often perceived as needing more attention and care than previous generations (Goldman and Martin, 2016; Varallo, 2008), and as higher education institutions strive to recruit, retain, and graduate these students, questions about what these students need to succeed is garnering center stage attention in numerous institutions (Mintz 2019; Pelletier 2019), including my home institution, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Thus, the research question posed by Miller & Mills (2019) was: How do Millennial and Generation Z undergraduate students conceptualize caring in higher education and what impact does this have on their learning?

To answer this question, Miller and Mills (2019) carried out in-depth, qualitative interviews and focus groups of undergraduate student attitudes regarding faculty instruction and course material in five historically difficult gateway courses, in both the humanities (history) and in STEM fields (chemistry, biology, and mathematics). The 31 interviews and 1 focus group, which were guided by a standard instrument exploring student perceptions and responses, were analyzed using an interactive, respondent-driven process. The specific topics contained in the instrument included questions on mindset, perceptions of instructors, classroom experiences, college readiness, and study habits. Though several key themes emerged from the data analysis, the article focused specifically on the data related to the theme of caring.

All study participants were in the Millennial and Generation Z birth cohorts, ranging in age from 18 to 29 years old, with a median age of 19 years old. Seventy-four percent of the participants were female and 26% were male. The racial identity of the participants was 55% black and 45% white, with no Hispanic or Asian students. Approximately 70% of the participants were first-generation college students. Participants represented a variety of majors, including humanities, STEM fields, and health care. The average GPA of the participants was 2.75/4.0, which was reflective of the demographic and academic profile of the undergraduate student body.

Overall, caring emerged as a significant theme throughout the data and was directly connected to student motivation to learn. Students clearly related the importance of faculty caring to their engagement in the class, their willingness to work hard, their likelihood of success, and their assessment of the course. As articulated by one student in the focus group: “If they don't care, I don't care.” However, unlike some prior research results (Cooper and Miness, 2014; Tosolt, 2010), Miller and Mills (2019) found that caring was not exclusively viewed by the students as a personality trait or attitude, but was also viewed as a practice evidenced by the teaching techniques faculty members employed.

In fact, in the eyes of the students, use of good teaching strategies often compensated for a perceived “bad” attitude by a faculty member. This finding, as we will discuss, carries with it several positive implications for helping students succeed in higher education. For now, let's examine the two-specific areas in which caring was identified (or not) by students in their interactions with faculty - caring as attitude and caring as teaching practice.

Prior research suggests that Millennial and Generation Z students need and expect a higher level of caring, well beyond what is traditionally expected from a normal faculty role (Varallo, 2008). However, the research by Miller and Mills (2019) suggests “that such extensive emotional investment outside the classroom may not be necessary for students to perceive that faculty care.” Rather, the Millennial and Generation Z students expressed that teachers demonstrated care through both their attitude and their teaching practices and that the use of effective teaching practices trumped a perceived lack of a caring attitude. As stated so effectively by Miller and Mills (2019), “A clear implication of this work is that effective teaching is at the core of caring and should be a priority for student success work on college campuses. When we talk about student success, we often focus on auxiliary or support structures, such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, early alert systems, intrusive advising, and course sequencing or degree paths. All of these elements are important, but not sufficient if in-class engagement of faculty is not present. In fact, utilization of such support structures would likely be enhanced if students are motivated to work harder through their in-class and faculty-to-student interaction experiences. If classes and instruction de-motivate students, they will be less likely to avail themselves of resources. In contrast, if their in-class experiences with faculty inspire engagement in learning, students may well continue that motivation into the resource areas of campus that complement the work of faculty.”

It follows naturally, if effective teaching is at the core of caring, then it is imperative that faculty in higher education be formally trained to teach effectively. As expressed by Miller and Mills (2019), “Faculty development is thus a central component to the student success agenda. Many University faculty members have not had the opportunity to learn evidence-based teaching techniques; providing such development could dramatically improve student learning outcomes and their persistence to graduation.”

This call for faculty to receive some form of teacher training is growing louder. For example, in his Fennema Essay, Richard Felder (2021), comparing two competing paradigms of STEM instruction – the traditional one and an emerging one, posed and responded to the question: “How should faculty members be prepared for their careers?” Addressing the need for faculty training in teaching, Felder writes, “Academicians are arguably the only skilled professionals who are not routinely trained for their careers. The apparent presumption is that if you get an advanced degree in a discipline, you must know how to teach it. (Anyone who has ever been a college student knows otherwise.).” Felder's proposed solution is to provide faculty with training in teaching and building a research program. Felder (2021) goes on to discuss research by Boice (1992, 2000) who studied hundreds of new faculty members and found that roughly 95% of them took an average of 4 to 5 years to meet their institutions’ expectations for teaching effectiveness and research productivity, while only 5% accomplished that in 1 to 2 years (Brent & Felder, 1998). Boice (1992, 2000) also found that effective training can shave years off the new faculty learning curve.

The good news is that training programs for those interested in careers in academics and those beginning careers in academics are available at some higher education institutions, as well as through disciplinary societies1. Although, to my knowledge, these types of programs are not yet commonplace, I am hopeful that more and more programs are in the works – they are surely needed! And perhaps one day teacher training will be required of higher education faculty and, likewise, “good teaching” will be rewarded on par with “good research.”

An example of a program in teacher training for those interested in careers in academics is available in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech (2021) through the Graduate Teaching Scholarship (GTS) program. The GTS program prepares doctorate students “to be as bold and creative in the classroom as they are in their research” as stated on the program website. Upon completion of the GTS program, participants receive both a disciplinary-specific Ph.D. and a Future Professoriate certification. These students will have an advantage over their peers, as they bring clear evidence of teaching capabilities and experience at the university level to their academic career interviews.

An example of a program in teacher training focused on those beginning their academic careers is in the College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences (ACES) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign2, entitled the ACES Teaching & Learning Academy. The ACES Teaching and Learning Academy (T&LA) is a collaborative 8 to 10-week faculty development program (depending on the year it was offered) designed to enhance the teaching skills that faculty members already possess, while developing new competencies that will make instructional design, delivery, and assessment even more effective. The two overarching goals of the ACES T&LA are to: (1) enhance faculty teaching effectiveness, efficiency, and self-confidence (also termed teacher self-efficacy, that is, confidence in their ability to promote students’ learning) by sharing best teaching and learning practices grounded in research findings; and (2) develop and foster a teaching community, similar to the communities that have evolved related to the research and outreach missions of the University of Illinois. I have been a member of the T&LA teaching team since its inception in Fall 1997 (Schmidt, Buriak, D'Arcy, Litchfield, Javenkoski, and Barrick, 2002).

The T&LA has made a substantial impact on the quality of teaching in the College of ACES at Illinois, as evidenced by increases in student assessment scores of teaching effectiveness, as well as the large number of teaching awards garnered by ACES faculty members over the years. I would strongly encourage all higher education institutions to offer teaching programs for faculty members. It is so essential that we equip faculty with effective and efficient evidenced-based teaching practices3 to help them become scholarly teachers4. In my experience, the longevity of such teaching programs seems to be high if they are faculty-driven, highly valued by department heads as well as upper administration, and immediately useful to the faculty members (they can put what they are learning into practice tomorrow). It is also helpful if the teaching program is sustained by a cohort of faculty who are willing to patiently navigate the ups and downs of changing academic priorities and budget issues, because they are fiercely dedicated to the long-term purpose of the program.

Based on what I am learning about faculty care, I would like to add a couple of items to the ACES T&LA agenda this fall in the session about understanding and caring for our students. The first item is to encourage faculty to not only include student-centered learning objectives in their course syllabus, but also to develop and share with their students student-centered care objectives. I started to work on the care objectives for the students in my freshman level “The Science of Food” course. Though I am still working on the best format for these objectives, here are a few examples of my student care objectives: 1) Because I care, I will strive to make social-emotional connections with my students; 2) Because I care, I will intentionally embed ways5 for my students to build relationships with other students in the course; and 3) Because I care, I will strive to share relatable examples from contemporary social circumstances to help my students connect and engage in meaningful ways with the course content. Of course, just as with student-centered learning objectives, I will need to determine more specifically how I will put each of these care objectives into practice and how their achievement (or not) can be measured.

The second item I would like to add to the T&LA agenda this fall is a discussion about the difference between passive and active caring as talked about by Krall (2018) in his book entitled “Necessary Conditions.” As defined by Krall (2018), passive caring refers to nonspecific attitudes of care from teachers. Teachers are welcoming, but they don't do anything specific to care for their students. Krall (2018) also mentioned that passive caring can be rather one sided, as the student often must care for the work of school before the teacher will demonstrate personal care or interest in the student. Krall (2018) explains that active caring, on the other hand, involves teachers actively getting to know and encouraging their students specifically. For example, in passive caring, teachers know each student's name, whereas, in active caring teachers go deeper and get to know each student's interests and passions. In addition, active caring demands a two-way relationship independent of the student's academic dispositions. In active caring, the teacher intentionally develops a positive relationship with all students, not just those identified as “good” students, with the teacher intentionally providing all students with the same level of personal and cultural care.

As asserted by Krall (2018), “The question of passive versus active caring cuts deep.” Many faculty members love their subject matter and tend to develop active caring relationships with only those students that also love the subject matter and/or perform well in school. The rest of the students don't experience intentional harm, but, as stated by Krall (2018), “the state of the classroom serves to reinforce long-standing gaps in status,” where students who demonstrate enthusiasm for the material or have naturally attractive personalities are elevated, whereas average or soft-spoken students feel invisible and struggling students slide further behind. Krall (2018) suggests that teachers who actively care for their students over the course of the semester, build up “social capital” with each student and are therefore able to push all students when they need pushing and, more importantly, notice in a timely fashion when students need help in the first place. This key connection between faculty caring and enhancing student engagement and learning reminds me of two of my favorite quotes about the impact of caring (Andrew, 2015): “Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care” by Theodore Roosevelt and “Brains are like hearts. They go where they are appreciated." by Robert McNamara.

The link exposed by Miller and Mills (2019) between faculty caring and student motivation and success is a very important and timely one, as so many institutions of higher education are searching feverishly for answers to a myriad of student success issues and concerns. If we frame the problem of student success as being about students demanding too much attention or being too needy, “it becomes an intractable one that only can be addressed through massive cultural change” – which is most unlikely to occur. But, “if we consider the power of changing the way we teach, however, the conversation shifts.” Miller and Mills (2019) research “indicates that student motivation can be improved without a huge out-of-class time investment or ‘hand holding’ on the part of faculty. Rather, utilizing adaptive teaching techniques and intentionally communicating that one cares if students learn can impact student motivation and engagement in their own learning process.” This is indeed good news! News that deserves attention, intentional implementation, and continued exploration.