Q&A with Commencement speaker Kelly Hogan

The faculty member selected to deliver the Dec. 13 Commencement address is Kelly Hogan, director of instructional innovation for the College of Arts and Sciences and senior STEM lecturer in the College’s biology department. Hogan teaches 400-seat classes on campus using interactive teaching techniques and technologies and has worked with many of Carolina’s faculty to help them reinvent their teaching.

Her 2014 study found that when her traditional lecture course was more highly structured and interactive – utilizing guided reading questions, preparatory homework and in-class activities to reinforce major concepts, study skills and higher-order thinking – all students performed better. Additionally, the change in course structure halved the achievement gap for black students and caused it to disappear for first-generation students.

What was it that made you change the way you teach?

My job is to make sure everybody in the class learns. If I have evidence that not everybody is learning, what can I do to improve? I didn’t have any evidence that I was doing a good job or not until I saw some data that a colleague from the Center for Faculty Excellence had given me. It was a racial-ethnic breakdown of Ds and Fs in my course. It showed a huge discrepancy in students who were getting Ds and Fs. One in three students who were black received a D or an F, based on this data. That number was more like one in 20 for white and Asian students. That was a real wake-up to me, and I wanted to see if I could level the playing field.

What is a high-structure class and what difference does it make?

What is meant by high structure is that students have three opportunities to practice skills and concepts – before, during and after class. Preparing for class is not suggested or optional. Students are required to read or watch videos and answer online homework or discussion questions. In class, all students are expected to participate, using technology or the social pressure of being called on to answer a question. It’s definitely a more inclusive experience. And it’s a much more informed way for the instructor to tailor the learning to the specific students in the room. Through technology or listening to various student group discussions, an instructor uses real-time data to make decisions about how to adjust the teaching. After class, student review is not optional; they are held accountable with regular homework or low-stakes quizzes.

Should all professors teach this way?

I don’t like to say “should.” These high-structure classes give students multiple chances to practice, and this distributed, repeated practice fits with what we know about how learning occurs. The biggest shift is that the reading or homework that might have been suggested on a professor’s syllabus is now required. Many professors with small classes or in disciplines like foreign languages have always used these techniques. We’ve been targeting large classes. The Center for Faculty Excellence has its 100+ grants program for instructors with 100 or more students in a class or over multiple sections. The AAU STEM program – designed for large introductory classes in chemistry, biology and physics – offers course relief for one semester for the instructor to redesign a class with help from a mentor.

What else can professors do to get their students more involved in learning?

Besides the structure of the course and the method of content delivery, I think it’s vital a professor explicitly demonstrate care for student learning. A professor can make a syllabus more welcoming. On the first day of class, they can show that they’re a real person and not so intimidating. They can invite students to office hours and check in by email with students, especially those who are struggling. Lastly, students become more deeply engaged when the content they are learning is relevant to their lives. What might seem like an obvious connection to a professor is less obvious to students, and so assignments and activities that allow the students to make connections to their lives often result in more meaningful learning.

What do you say to those who think that closing the achievement gap lowers class standards?

Closing achievement gaps simply means that some students are benefitting more than others—but in my study and others it’s important to note that all students benefit. The repeated, required practice and interactions in a classroom community are helping all students reach the goals. That means course grades are improving and failure rates are decreasing. If you tell students this is what you want them to learn and they learn it, why are you going to punish them for that and say only X percent of you can have a certain grade? If we are competency-based and more students are really getting there, then we have an opportunity to adjust our goals as teachers and say, “How much more can they do?” Studies find that students in high structure classes perform better on higher-order thinking activities. Thus, it’s quite the opposite of lowering class standards. It means we have an opportunity to raise the bar and improve education broadly. And this, I think, is the hallmark of our profession– we should use evidence to adjust our teaching to help all students reach our high expectations.

For more on Hogan, read Hogans, Heroes