Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT) - Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence

What is Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT)?
What kind of feedback do Student Consultants provide?
For Instructors: Learn More About SCOT
For Students: Learn More About SCOT
Students as Partners: An Annotated Bibliography by Jacques Safari Mwayaona
Further Reading: Students as Partners

What is Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT)?

The Students Consulting on Teaching program is a short-term partnership between a faculty member and a student consultant who is trained to help faculty gather learner feedback. The purpose is to support faculty in making small, meaningful teaching changes that are informed by both broad research on learning and student feedback in a specific course.

Co-sponsored by the Shaw Center for Academic Community Engagement

What kind of feedback do Student Consultants provide?

Student consultants (SC) are prepared to consult using one of the following methods, and they are guided throughout the process by CTLE staff:

Small group instructional feedback

The SC and faculty partner meet to explore what the faculty member wants to learn from enrolled students. This can range from a general inquiry, such as what is going well and what challenges students are encountering, to a specific question, such as how to more effectively engage students in class discussion. Together, the student consultant and faculty partner develop 3 open-ended questions and print these as handouts. The SC conducts the small group instructional feedback session in class; the faculty member is not present. During the process, (a) individual students respond in writing to the 3 questions, (b) they then discuss and respond to the same questions in small groups, and finally, (c) the SC facilitates a whole class conversation among the groups to document student responses to questions. The SC communicates to the professor those responses that have a strong consensus by enrolled students and discusses these in person with the professor. Student responses are anonymous. This method emphasizes collective feedback and commonalities across students. Approximate faculty time on task excluding email: 45 min consultation with SC / 30-40 min of class time (SC with students; faculty not present) / 45 min consultation with SC.

Early course feedback surveys

The SC and faculty partner meet to identify aspects of student learning where the faculty member wants feedback. Together, they sketch out a brief questionnaire and plan how to administer it. Via email, they refine the questions and confirm their plan for administering the questionnaire. The SC analyzes and summarizes the data. The SC and faculty partner interpret the findings together in a follow-up conversation. Enrolled student responses are anonymous. This method can show trends in student feedback as well as the range of individual responses. Approximate faculty time on task excluding email: 1 hr. consultation with SC to select learning focus, draft survey items, plan / 15 min faculty gives survey in class / 45 min consultation with SC

Class observation

This method offers the faculty partner an opportunity to seek perspective on their teaching from an SC who’s not enrolled in their course. The SC and faculty select 2 class periods for observation. They identify foci for the observation (e.g., flow and pace of the lesson, interactions and participation, media, group work). The SC attends class and takes notes. The SC then works with CTLE staff to reflect on the notes and provides them verbally during a post-observation conversation with the faculty partner. Approximate faculty time on task excluding email: 45 min consultation with SC – prior to the observation / SC observes 2 classes (e.g., 2x 45 min) – 45 min consultation with SC – post-observation.

For Instructors: Learn More about SCOT

Faculty consistently report that SCOT is a uniquely effective way to gain insights, build skills, and improve teaching and learning in the classroom, including identifying what’s working well. For example: “My student consultant (SC) had taken the course previously. Since then, I have implemented ways for students to engage, and the SC noticed that students were more engaged than before.” “I learned that students thought I was organized, attentive, amazingly accessible, and that my announcements were helpful. In short, the rapport was there.”

Faculty participation in SCOT is entirely voluntary and confidential, meaning that the CTLE does not share identifying information about consultations or participation in programs like SCOT with any other office, department, or program. But we believe that participation in pedagogical reflection and development through CTLE programs and implementation of research-based teaching methods offer compelling evidence of teaching efficacy. As such, we encourage participants to communicate information about and discuss their engagement with CTLE programs and services at their discretion.

For Students: Learn More About SCOT

The Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT) program is a short-term partnership between a faculty member and a student consultant who is trained to help faculty gather learner feedback. Participating student consultants grow and better prepare for their professional careers by gaining valuable real-world skills, such as:

Communication
Collaboration
Critical thinking, and
Problem-solving

Hear from past student consultants about what they’ve gained from the program in this short video.

Students as Partners: An Annotated Bibliography by Jacques Safari Mwayaona

What is Students as Partners? | Wollongong University Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum Students as Partners
(SaP) is an approach where students and staff collaborate as equals to improve teaching and learning. SaP empowers students to actively contribute their insights and perspectives, fostering a transformative educational environment where everyone benefits from shared responsibility and mutual respect.

Working With Students as Partners | Cambridge Center for Teaching and Learning
This guide aims to support staff in working with students as partners for research or educational enhancement projects. It briefly introduces the concept and some ways of understanding students as partners work and how this might manifest in practical terms. To do this, the guide provides support on setting up your own partnership project and opportunities to explore case studies of practice from existing small and large scale student partnership initiatives.

Students as Partners: Benefits and Challenges | Wollongong University Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum
This is an article about the benefits and challenges of students being partners in education [S1]. It discusses what student partnerships are and the positive outcomes for both students and faculty [S2, S3]. Student benefits include increased engagement, motivation, and self-awareness [S3]. Faculty benefits include improved relationships with students and a chance to develop new teaching methods [S3]. Challenges include resistance from some students and faculty, time constraints, and institutional limitations [S4, S6, S7]. The article also offers ways to address these challenges [S5, S6, S7].

Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning Together: Unmasking Power in a Students as Partners Program using Collaborative Autoethnography | Student Success Journal
Abstract: “We interrogated a students as partners (SaP), co-curricular program that focuses on supporting student learning. To center power and equity in SaP, the program was grounded in social design-based experiment methodology. We considered the manifestation of power and equity beyond higher education, to that of broader socio-political contexts. Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) was used to garner a richer understanding of student-staff experiences of the program. Through CAE, power emerged as central to our collective experiences, and a recognition that power asymmetry in students as partners programs is complex and multi-layered. We found that to address power imbalances in these programs requires considered strategies and intentional designs. Further, CAE, in and of itself, can be a powerful way to foster self-awareness, mutual trust, respect, and the acknowledgement of others in student-staff partnerships. We conclude by recommending the importance of deliberate design for equity and power towards consequential learning and transformational change.”

“Every partnership [… is] an emotional experience’: Towards a Model of Partnership Support for Addressing the Emotional Challenges of Student–Staff Partnerships | Teaching in Higher Education
Abstract: The practice of student–staff partnerships is fundamentally about relationships. As new partnerships are formed, and existing power relations challenged, people experience a range of emotions. Despite their importance, there are few studies that have systematically researched the emotional challenges of student–staff partnership. Through a humanistic approach focused on analyzing participants’ experiences of partnership we found that varying degrees of hope, pride, anxiety, and frustration were experienced by both students and staff in a curriculum development partnership project. We argue that effective partnership practices should recognize and support the emotional wellbeing of student and staff partners. Drawing upon the effective characteristics of partnership support found in this research and the broader literature, we propose a flexible support model drawing on (1) peer support, (2) mentoring, and (3) independent reflective writing. Partnership practice that actively supports the emotions involved in working in the partnership may encourage more partnerships in the future.

Gathering Feedback excerpted from Pedagogical Partnerships: A How-To Guide
This chapter explores strategies for gathering student feedback through student partners, emphasizing the importance of faculty responsiveness and preparedness to act on feedback received. It delves into goal setting for feedback, emotional preparation for both faculty and student partners, and clear communication with students about the process.

What are the shared responsibilities of facilitating pedagogical partnerships? Excerpted from Pedagogical Partnerships: A How-To Guide | Cengage Learning
This chapter of Pedagogical Partnerships begins with a discussion of how to conceptualize facilitation of pedagogical partnership as focused on sharing perspectives with the purpose of dialogue, not necessarily critique and change. It identifies the shared roles and responsibilities of all participants in partnership, including beginning with a focus on what is working well (affirmation) and then moving to any areas for growth, and it emphasizes the importance of building relationships, listening, and embracing different goals that partners might bring to partnership work.

Guidelines for Student and Faculty Partners in Classroom-focused Pedagogical Partnerships excerpted from Pedagogical Partnerships: A How-To Guide | Cengage Learning
This document provides comprehensive guidelines for student and faculty partners in pedagogical partnerships. It covers crucial aspects like establishing rapport, setting focus areas, defining roles, and gathering feedback. The guidelines emphasize open communication, mutual respect, and the co-creation of a productive learning environment. They also offer practical techniques for observation and reflection, along with advice from experienced participants.