This morning I listened to a recent podcast on the Teaching in Higher Ed Podcast called “Relationship-rich education”. Bonni Stachowiak talked with Peter Felten and Leo Lambert about their new book: Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college, due to be released soon. Felten and Lambert have both worked in significant roles in which they encourage institutions of higher education to adopt practices focused on developing a sense of community and fostering mentoring as an institutional goal.
I have read widely on relational education and consider myself a relational educator, but the term ‘relationship-rich’ was new to me. The way the speakers described the concept makes it clear that cultivating relationships is not a stand-alone goal. Building relationships and mentoring students are the means for creating fertile learning conditions, encouraging student motivation and engagement and reinforcing confidence. Building relationships is not an add-on; it is infused in every lesson and activity, woven through every opportunity to see the individuals sitting in a class or communicating through the screen.
After listening to the podcast, I turned to think about my professional context and practice. I strongly identify with the outlook I heard from Felten and Lambert, I can indeed point to several areas in which I can enrich my practice. I now need to try to enact those philosophies in an online setting, something which I see as far more challenging. Although I have spent time and energy creating activities and structures which encourage the cultivation of student relationships with me, I have a long way to go in generating a relationship-rich learning environment in which student-student relationships and student mentoring are at the centre.
It is clear to me that if educational institutions adopt philosophies of relational teaching and learning, the expectations and the learning culture will be more apparent to the students. The impact will also be more significant than if a few lecturers adopt a relational stance and develop community in their classes.
The email I received this week from Dr Nir Michaeli, rector of the Oranim College of Education, pointed to similar educational philosophies. The email, which outlined institutional instructions for the new academic year, explained:
“At the heart of the pedagogy and the values of Oranim College, stands our orientation towards human interaction between learners and teachers. In this period of distancing, this human outlook becomes all the more crucial. Therefore, there is room to allow ourselves to provide space in our teaching for dialogue and engagement which provide the students with an opportunity to be ‘seen’, even if the price is a reduction in the amount of material covered”.
The direction reminded me of the Oranim slogan: “Oranim, first of all people”.
I value this statement and the emphasis placed on it at the beginning of this challenging year. Rereading the correspondence in dialogue with the podcast, awakened questions: How many lecturers read the email? How many of those readers saw the instruction as obvious and a central tenet in their regular teaching? How many read it but didn’t comprehend what is required of them in focusing their teaching on generating real connections and dialogue with their students? How many raised an eyebrow, especially at the open admission that the race towards covering the material may be compromised?
I listened closely to the discussion in the podcast about the Persistence Project at Oakton Community College. The idea of individual conversations with students at the beginning of the semester isn’t foreign to me. At Oakton, lecturers meet with each student in the class individually for 15 minutes, early in the semester. They aim for every student in the college to have at least one of those meetings with a lecturer. Another practice they have found to be useful is to ensure that all students have some work returned to them with feedback early on in the course.
Before the academic year opened, I met every one of the 13 pre-service teachers in my practicum group for a twenty-minute Zoom conversation. I enjoyed those meetings and felt the time invested was well spent. I knew their names from the outset, and believe that I have paved the way for significant ongoing dialogue with them. I acknowledge that the school-based practicum is different from the academic courses I am teaching at the college. Still, I am challenging myself to explore the kinds of relationships I hope to be developing with the 30-40 students studying in my courses.
Felten and Lambert discussed the importance of names. While studying on Zoom, I will ask for all students to change the names on their screens to their names, so that I can engage with them and use their names in all class sessions. I have already decided that I will ask students to add a photo to their student card on the Moodle so that I can connect faces to names quicker. In one of my courses, I plan to use Flipgrid for student introductions. I am interested to see how that helps me get to know the students in a reasonable time frame, and how it affects the generation of a sense of community.
Another practice which I believe is consistent with the ideas featured in the podcast is the informal open Zoom sessions I have with students during asynchronous study units. Once a week, I am online and welcome students to come in to discuss anything they like. From my experience last year, many pop in to ask for help in their work, some log in to say hello, and others come in often, to chat, see the other students, and share stories and experiences. I always log off with a feeling of satisfaction and a conviction that spaces of dialogue need to be crafted and squeezed into our busy schedule, but they can indeed make a difference.
I highly recommend listening to the podcast; I know I will be returning to it!
