In my previous post, I wrote about how a recent moving experience prompted me to rethink the parts of my job where I encourage colleagues to consider new or different teaching methods. Since I’m a “yes, let’s always turn over a new leaf!” person by nature, moving helped me gain some empathy for those who might not be as enthusiastic about change as I am.
Two key findings emerged for me: The first was that I needed to practice asking for help myself, something I’m loathe to do. Framing this behavioral adjustment as “practice” was especially helpful because practicing is low-stakes and friendly. On a recent Home Depot trip, I practiced asking for help finding something right away, and once again, that request paid big dividends in time not spent wandering aisles.
The second key finding was this: When planning for change, don’t just consider or plan for the worst-case scenario; go one step further and find peace with the fact that the worst-case scenario might be what happens.
That might seem sort of obvious – if you’re planning for the worst-case scenario, you’re obviously considering it, right? But I think many of us plan for the worst-case scenario assuming that by planning for it, we’ll avoid it.
In the moments when I felt most panicked about moving, I tried to visualize what would happen if this move ended up being a huge mistake. Yes, it would be a gigantic error to rectify. There would be time ramifications, financial ramifications, stress ramifications. Time, money, stress – three pretty big-ticket items to try to fix if all goes poorly.
In teaching, one of the most prominent “big-ticket items” is course evaluations, which is why my colleagues might be hesitant to try a new teaching strategy or to reshape an entire course. A recent Inside Higher Ed article, “Will Trying New Teaching Techniques Tank My Evaluations,” addressed just this issue.
Charles Henderson, a professor of physics education and co-founder of Western Michigan University’s Center for Research on Instructional Change in Postsecondary Education, set out to determine what impact implementing change in the classroom had on instructor evaluations. Henderson and his team surveyed hundreds of early-career faculty who had taken part in a discipline-specific professional development workshop. In the survey, a large percentage of faculty (48%) noted that the use of interactive teaching techniques has improved their course evaluations.
However, 20% of those surveyed felt that their evaluations had suffered as a result of change – not an insignificant percentage.
I’d like to know more about where those faculty landed after implementing changes to their teaching and then seeing lower course evaluations. Did they go back to their previous ways of teaching? Did they continue to experiment? And, more importantly, how were they dealing with this “worst-case scenario,” where they’d tried something new and seen their course evaluations suffer?
Most importantly, I hope that this less-than-desirable outcome (lower course evals) doesn’t stifle the ingenuity of these faculty. If they were able to plan for, and come to peace with, this possibility, then perhaps they’ll retain that willingness to examine their experiment anew and embrace change again.