One of the FAQs of educational development

"Isn't that just good teaching?"

I am always fascinated by how many faculty developers get the same types of questions and comments during the course of their work from faculty participants. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the common question about inclusive and accessible practices, “Won’t this just lead to students ‘taking advantage’?” I was reminded of another of these FAQs (well, sometimes more of a comment than a question) in a session at the recent POD conference all about “uncertainty” in teaching and educational development facilitated by Wells Castonguay and Adam Harris Smith. The presenters mentioned the phrase “Isn’t that just good teaching?” (perhaps as part of the sentence “inclusive teaching is just good teaching”) as one of the sentiments used to try to diffuse uncertainty about new teaching practices. In my own experience, this idea is raised by both instructors who participate in faculty development programming and by the developers themselves. Developers will often use it to help push past apprehension, as if to say “Don’t be alarmed! Inclusion is just a part of ‘good teaching,’ which no one would object to.” Faculty, in my experience, will similarly use this line to suggest that nothing new or innovative is being proposed by the idea of “inclusive teaching,” in some cases to question whether developers have any useful knowledge to contribute, or are just repackaging existing ideas. It strikes me that these two perspectives could use some bridging.

Until I started pondering this “inclusive teaching is just good teaching” idea, I wasn’t aware that researchers have taken note of the sentiment for decades. Nearly 30 years ago, in an article cited more than 7,000 times, the prominent education researcher Gloria Ladson-Billings addressed this point head-on in her argument for “culturally relevant pedagogy.” This pedagogical approach was developed and refined by Ladson-Billings based on her research on “successful teachers of African American students,” and challenges teachers to question deficit-based approaches to students’ cultures and communities, shifting to viewing culture and community as assets in the learning process. Culturally relevant pedagogy falls under the larger umbrella of “inclusive teaching” approaches, though it is probably better known and more often discussed in the world of K-12 education than in higher education. In the article titled “But that’s just good teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” Ladson-Billings unpacks this statement. Reading through the article gave me a few things to think about for faculty development practice.

Ladson-Billings recalls sharing some of the findings of her research on teaching excellence that aligns with culturally responsive pedagogy with various groups of educators and being met with “that’s just good teaching.” Her hypothesis about what was behind this statement is that listeners were expecting to hear that her research had uncovered a “magic bullet” solution to problems in schools, but were actually presented with what they believed were “routine” teaching strategies (and were disappointed). She responded that she was in agreement that her findings were not “new”, but that there needed to be more of this type of teaching.

This anecdote encourages me to frame some of my work as more explicitly referencing instructors’ ongoing teaching experiences than introducing a brand new framework. Ladson-Billings notes that consumers of educational research (and I would argue faculty professional development) are often expecting to be presented with brand new ideas or information. For some faculty, ideas such as the need for students to feel welcome and included, like their backgrounds and cultures are respected, or their learning needs are honored may in fact be brand new. Many other faculty (I would expect most with significant teaching experience) have been thinking about these elements of teaching and learning in some way or another for a long time. I wonder what would change if instead of presenting teaching ideas as new by default, the narrative went more like this:

“Some researchers and teachers in the 1990’s took a set of ideas about removing barriers for students with disabilities through design, and called the approach Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Eventually, it grew into a larger framework for teaching with many different considerations for engaging students, providing them options for perceiving information, and for demonstrating their knowledge. If you are encountering UDL for the first time, what feels new and what feels familiar about these ideas? If you are already acquainted with UDL, which elements have you found yourself more able or ready to implement, and which less?”

Maybe that’s “just good faculty development,” (humor!) but it does help to remind myself of it.

Another of Ladson-Billings’ stories in the article that stuck with me is her retelling of the initial analysis of her research data, which included ethnographic interviews and observations of a group of teachers who had been identified as excellent by parents and administrators. She recalled, “Initially, as I observed the teachers I could not see patterns or similarities in their teaching. Some seemed very structured and regimented, using daily routines and activities. Others seemed more open or unstructured. Learning seemed to emerge from student initiation and suggestions. Still others seemed eclectic-very structured for certain activities and unstructured for others. It seemed to be a researcher's nightmare…”

The author was, like her later audience, expecting to see “magic bullet” strategies which never quite emerged. I thought the “It seemed to be a researcher’s nightmare,” comment was funny and demonstrated a keen awareness of how often we only feel like we are successful in research when the “answers” announce themselves clearly. Ladson-Billings did go on to say that practices that were common to the teachers in her study became a bit more clear upon further analysis. These were mostly relational stances, though, rather than discrete teaching practices. For example, she found that most of the teachers in the study regularly encouraged students to take on the role of teacher and share their knowledge with the class (although it seems like this took different forms for different teachers). In this context, inclusive teaching is more than just “good teaching,” or a set of clearly observable behaviors. Inclusive teaching might alternatively be viewed as the unique way that each instructor translates their beliefs and values into practice with the set of students that they teach.

This story from the article was actually incredibly heartening for me. I do have strong opinions on teaching, but I do not have a desire for everyone who I work with to teach in the way that I do. I also try to be open and self-aware about how my own values interact with my own background and past experiences to produce some of my own teaching practices. Many of these have to do with my own neurodivergence, and my past and present experiences in the classroom. For example, most times I enter a learning space, I feel like I am making a decision between behaving in a way that is actually conducive to my own learning (this involves my posture, facial expression etc.) or behaving in a more socially acceptable way that is not conducive to learning. Because of this experience, I am always concerned that behavioral expectations will pose a barrier to learning for someone. I very rarely require certain behaviors like raising one’s hand to speak. I don’t have many penalties for “errors” related to behavior or participation (though I will often try to talk to students about the ways they are not meeting expectations). I fully recognize that this exact orientation will not work for everyone, so I tend to explain it in terms of values and beliefs, and ask how other instructors might enact the same values or beliefs in their own teaching. I think that discussion of how different people with different backgrounds, experiences, and most importantly, different students would work towards inclusion is the most interesting and important one. It is also the discussion that I think most reveals how inclusive teaching is not “just” any one thing, but a rich, complex, and likely career-long pursuit.

I am very open to your own takes on “inclusive teaching is just good teaching,” or any other feedback. Please feel free to comment if you are logged-in to Substack or contact me.

Photo by Volkan Olmez on Unsplash