ERIC EJ1069724: Teaching Culture Perception: Documenting and Transforming Institutional Teaching Cultures

2015·0.34 MB·English

by  ERIC

Teaching Culture Perception:

Documenting and Transforming 2015 CELT Vol. VIII
celt.uwindsor.ca
www.stlhe.ca
Institutional Teaching Cultures

Erika Kustra, University of Windsor
Florida Doci, University of Windsor
Kaitlyn Gillard, University of Windsor
Catharine Dishke Hondzel, University of Western Ontario
Lori Goff, McMaster University
Danielle Gabay, McMaster University
Ken N. Meadows, University of Western Ontario
Paola Borin, Ryerson University
Peter Wolf, Queen’s University
Donna Ellis, University of Waterloo
Hoda Eiliat, University of Windsor
Jill Grose, Brock University
Debra L. Dawson, University of Western Ontario
Sandy Hughes, Wilfrid Laurier University

An institutional culture that values teaching is likely to lead to improved student learning. The
main focus of this study was to determine faculty, graduate and undergraduate students’ perceptions
of the teaching culture at their institution and identify indicators of that teaching culture. Themes
included support for teaching development; support for best practices, innovative practices and
specific effective behaviours; recognition of teaching; infrastructure; evaluation of teaching and
implementing the student feedback received from teaching evaluations. The study contributes to a
larger project examining the quality of institutional teaching culture.

Introduction

I n order to build an innovative, sustainable, and Institutional culture can be defined as the embedded
high quality post-secondary educational system, we patterns, behaviours, shared values, beliefs, and
need to consider the extent to which institutional ideologies of an educational institution (Kezar &
Eckel, 2002), and it matters because the culture of an
cultures value quality teaching. As Cox, McIntosh,
educational institution helps to shape the experience
Reason, and Terenzini (2011) note, a culture with
for both educators and students. “Quality teaching”
improved teaching quality is likely to lead to
is a dynamic, contextual term, which may hold a
improved student engagement and learning.
231
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. VIII

variety of meanings for different stakeholders teaching culture is challenging and generally takes the
(Harvey, Burrows, & Green, 1992; Harvey & form of proxy measures, called indicators. Indicators
Stensaker 2008; Hau, 1996; Scott, 1998). Hénard can reveal the current state and perceived progress
and Roseveare (2012) suggest that at its simplest level, toward a specific objective. To assess the progress or
quality teaching is “the use of pedagogical techniques change within an educational institution, four groups
to produce learning outcomes for students” (p.7). of performance indicators are customarily evaluated:
Institutional culture and quality teaching should be input, process, output, and outcome indicators
considered together, as there is an important (Borden & Bottrill, 1994; Cave, Hanney, Henkel, &
relationship between institutional culture and Kogan, 1991; Chalmers, 2008;; Richardson, 1994).
teaching (Stein, 1997). The main focus of this Input and output indicators are generally responsible
component of an ongoing research program was to for the quantitative measurement of an intended
determine faculty, graduate and undergraduate result or change; with input (or presage) indicators
students’ perceptions of the teaching culture at their assessing the resources involved in supporting the
institution and identify indicators of that teaching institution (Chalmers, 2008) and output indicators
culture. measuring what is produced (Bruke, 1998). Process
Institutional teaching culture plays a major indicators provide an understanding about an
role in defining ways of perceiving, thinking, and institution’s current practices and quality of practice,
feeling about the nature and scope of education. For and inform further initiatives and policy decisions,
example, in an effective institutional teaching culture leading to quality enhancement (Kuh, Pace, &
the importance of teaching is recognized, teaching is Vesper, 1997). Process indicators are usually
constructively assessed, various stakeholders and qualitative and consider the most practical and
resources are engaged, and teacher development is appropriate measures of quality teaching and learning
supported (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012; Paulsen & within higher education institutions (Chalmers &
Feldman, 1995). Evidence suggests that culture can Thomson, 2008). Outcome indicators examine the
positively influence outcomes such as student quality of an educational program and the abilities of
persistence, learning, and engagement (Berger & graduates (Warglien & Savoia, 2001). In some
Braxton, 1998; Berger & Milem, 1999; Cox et al., analyses, the output and outcome indicators are
2011; Grayson & Grayson, 2003). considered together as product variables (Gibbs,
Measuring the quality of an institution’s 2010).
Figure 1
Relationship Between Indicators and Teaching Culture
232
Teaching Culture Perception
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between findings to identify practices and strategies to enhance
indicators and the quality of a teaching culture. Input their teaching culture.
and process indicators (qualitative and quantitative) Unfortunately, we currently do not have
together clarify the available resources and adequate measures to gauge institutional teaching
infrastructure. Input indicators are often related to cultures. Consequently, the main goal of the inter-
quantity of resources, and process indicators are the institutional team leading this project was to develop
means and processes (an institution’s current a survey instrument that assesses the prevailing
practices). Understanding these indicators provides perceptions regarding the teaching culture among key
the appropriate information and context to better stakeholders – the Teaching Culture Perception
interpret the output and outcome indicators. Survey (TCPS), and to identify seperate indicators
Together indicators give a picture of the quality of an that could be used to triangulate information.
institution’s teaching culture. The selection of indicators to be included in
Various indicators from any one of these the perception survey was guided by Hénard and
types may be used to assess whether an institution Roseveare’s (2012) conceptual framework that
values quality teaching, teaching enhancement, and a identifies seven overarching themes, to which they
teaching culture. If researchers wish to determine refer as levers that provide concrete ways to foster
whether teaching quality is a priority, it is helpful to quality teaching in post-secondary institutions. Their
consider the level at which quality teaching might be levers are:
considered a priority within an institution.
Information about the teaching culture may be 1) raising awareness of quality teaching;
gathered from three inter-dependent levels: university 2) developing excellent teachers;
or institution-wide, program or departmental level, 3) engaging students;
and individual level (Chalmers, 2008). For the 4) building organization for change and
purposes of this study, information gathered at the teaching leadership;
individual or departmental level would be used to 5) aligning institutional policies to foster
gain a better understanding of the institutional quality teaching;
culture. 6) highlighting innovation as a driver of
Before engaging in a change process, Kezar change; and
and Eckel (2002) recommend campuses conduct 7) assessing impacts.
audits of their institutional cultures, since assessing
change requires knowledge of the current position, Their framework was adapted for the current
and future goals. The larger study on teaching culture project to more closely address the Canadian context,
that this team of eight institutions has commenced to decrease overlap between concepts, and to shorten
aims to document and analyze educational the survey length. Eight Ontario universities
stakeholder perceptions on the importance of quality participated in the project which was funded by a
teaching at a university, and various components that Ministry of Training, College, and Universities’
contribute to an institutional culture that values Productivity Innovation Fund grant (Kustra et al.,
teaching. This project involved a pilot study to 2014). As part of this project, a series of focus groups
develop a perception survey, and identification of were conducted in order to determine 1) perceptions
additional possible indicators through which one of teaching culture, 2) indicators felt to reflect
could assess an institutional culture. The hope was to institutional culture, and 3) perceptions of the
allow institutions to establish a baseline, evaluate teaching culture survey designed by the research
change over time as well as the effectiveness and team. The focus groups were run with full and part-
impact that projects have on shifting institutional time faculty members, sessional and contractually
culture. In addition, institutions could use the survey limited instructors (referred to by different titles at
different institutions). We will refer to this group as
233
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. VIII

‘faculty’ for brevity and consistency. Additionally, McMaster University, Ryerson University, Guelph
undergraduate and graduate students participated in University, University of Waterloo, Brock University
the focus groups. For the purposes of the current and Wilfrid Laurier University. Three sites were
paper, we will focus on the analysis of the focus group chosen to conduct the research: University of
results that identified participant perceptions of the Windsor, The University of Western Ontario and
teaching culture at their institution, and the McMaster University, with research ethics approval
indicators they felt might reflect that institutional received from each institution.
culture.

Participants

Methods
Each institution held a series of focus groups with
undergraduate students, graduate students and
faculty members. Each group had a maximum of 10
The research project was collaboratively developed by
participants, and the total number of participants at
members of eight institutions: University of
each institution is outlined in Table 1.
Windsor, The University of Western Ontario,

Table 1
Focus Group Participants
University Undergraduate Graduate Faculty/Administrators Total
/Sessional
McMaster University 6 6 13 25
Western University 5 7 14 26
University of Windsor 25 5 8 38

Procedure
The focus groups were facilitated by trained
research assistants, and lasted 60 minutes. Before
This study was part of a larger study, including an discussions began, participants were informed about
online survey (Kustra et al., 2014). Participants were the purpose of the focus group, and were asked for
recruited from those who completed the Teaching their verbal permission to be audio recorded.
Culture Perception Survey (3869 completed the Participants who refused audio recording were invited
survey: 729 faculty, 1602 graduate students, 1514 to leave the focus group. Consenting participants
undergraduate students and 24 students with were asked to provide a pseudonym on a name card
undeclared level). As part of the Teaching Culture to increase confidentiality.
Perception Survey conducted online, participants Each focus group followed the same script
were invited to submit their email addresses if they (for full script see Kustra et al., 2014), addressing
wanted to participate in future focus groups. Once three types of questions: 1) perception of the teaching
the survey was closed, potential focus group culture at their institution, 2) indicators of that
participants were emailed an invitation to participate culture, and 3) perception of the TCPS. The focus
in the focus groups. of this article is on the first two types.

234
Teaching Culture Perception
The faculty focus groups included questions with which these indicators were mentioned varied
such as: “What is the teaching culture at [ … ] between focus groups; however, several common
institution?”, “What are some components of quality themes were identified in the transcripts. Overall, the
teaching?”, Probe: “What are the products of quality five most commonly mentioned indicators of
teaching?” and “Is the survey missing any questions teaching culture for faculty were: support for
what would tell more about the culture of teaching teaching, recognition of teaching, infrastructure,
quality?” priority given to teaching, and teaching evaluations.
Questions for students included: “How do
you know if a university values teaching?”, “What is Support for Teaching

done at the university that signals that teaching is a
Faculty members identified a number of teaching and
priority?”, and “How do you know if a university does
learning practices that were supported by their
not value teaching?”
institution that demonstrated commitment to
Upon completion participants received a gift
teaching. For example, participants specifically
certificate of $20 toward Hospitality Services at their
identified teaching and learning centres and most
respective institutions. All sessions were audiotaped,
indicated that the units offer important resources and
and transcribed exactly from the audiotape by
provide meaningful and relevant support for
research assistants. Once transcriptions were
teaching. One participant stated:
complete, research assistants were assigned to re-read

the transcripts to increase the accuracy.
You can ask to have a review by the [centre] and
Qualitative software (MaxQDA) was used to
someone will visit your classroom and give you
tag recurring themes for focus group questions related
feedback, and there’s also things like [the program]
to the quality of the teaching culture and indicators.
where you can visit other people’s classroom and get
Themes were examined by research assistants from at
feedback from them.
least two institutions to ensure consistency of

approach.
Although there was a considerable amount of

positive discussion around the support for teaching,

it was not uniformly positive. This might be
Results
reflective of different institutions, or of different

cultures within the institutions. For example,
The main focus of this component of the research another participant had a different view:
program was to determine faculty, graduate and

undergraduate students’ perception of the teaching I think that you know we’ve put a ton of money
culture at their institution and identify indicators of into [the centre] and most of my colleagues, they
that teaching culture. These questions are addressed don’t have a high opinion of that, shall we say.
in turn below by participant group. For the purposes They would much rather see the money spent in
of anonymity, when a centre for teaching and you know concrete supports for teaching like more
learning is identified, it will be referred to as the TA support, or better classrooms, more proctors for
‘centre’. tests ….

Other faculty mentioned that while centres
Faculty Focus Groups were present, they wondered if they were adequately
resourced:
During the focus groups, faculty members from all

three institutions identified both positive and
Well for [the director of our centre] is there an
negative input and process indicators. The frequency
adequately resourced teaching support center?
235
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. VIII

That’s a pretty important question because they do Another faculty member indicated that
a lot of work.
We talk about being student-centered and
Recognition of Teaching focused, you know, and making teaching
important and we do everything in the opposite
Teaching awards were seen as providing the university direction. .. we’ve just renovated a whole bunch
with an outward means to demonstrate its of classrooms, …. and then we walk into room
commitment to teaching and learning: after room after room and all the seats are bolted
to the ground.
Recognition of teaching excellence [is] critically
important. Infrastructure is an input indicator that was
generally discussed as a barrier to effective teaching,
Some faculty members, however, were cynical impeding the use of best practices to engage students
about the selection process and the value placed on in active and meaningful ways. Infrastructure
teaching within individual departments. Selection concerns ranged from the types of seating available to
criteria, and factors including gender, merit, and overcrowded classrooms to aging or broken
number of awards, were questioned. Another technology.
focus group participant felt that teaching awards
were not valued: Research above Teaching

…there are you know teaching awards that people When asked to describe the teaching culture on their
can strive towards, and all sorts of things like that. campus, many of the faculty members who
But, on the ground, is it valued? … I think my participated in the focus groups laughed or smiled,
students value what I do, but I don’t think the and then commented that the university culture was
university values it very much. not about teaching; it was about research. Participants
from every field spoke about how teaching was seen
These excerpts provide indication that while as a ‘load’ or a ‘burden’ that was escapable only if you
the input indicator of recognition of teaching is could bring in enough research funding. Teaching
generally valued, there is cynicism by some around release and sabbaticals were referenced as rewards for
award value and validity. These conflicting well-funded researchers while effective teaching was
perspectives speak to competing priorities, and relate rewarded with an increased teaching load or larger
to process indicators to be discussed shortly, namely class sizes. The impact of sessional or contractually
the ways in which research is valued over teaching and limited positions was raised frequently. An example
the perceived lack of a valid measure to evaluate of this perspective is:
quality teaching.
I’m a limited term faculty member so I have a
Infrastructure heavy teaching load, and I constantly see people
who are tenured faculty members in our
Aging teaching spaces and inappropriate department trying to figure out ways to not have
infrastructure was frequently linked to the culture of to teach. …. We’re not considered to be the same
teaching. For example, level of importance... So the message is that what
you’re doing really isn’t important…
It was a soulless room with very poor AV facilities,
with students not in a space where you could do Another faculty member indicated that:
anything but stand at the front.

236
Teaching Culture Perception
Promotions are definitely based on research almost speak well at all, but still be an effective
solely because effectively if the letters don’t come instructor.
back from the external reviewers as warm or
better there’s no chance for promotion no matter Together, these concerns speak to the value
how good of a teacher you are. And they actually that the focus group participants themselves placed
see very little about your teaching because they get on teaching quality and the commitment they had to
your CV and that’s what they do their ranking providing their students with meaningful learning
based on. experiences. Other discussions that took place in the
focus groups revolved around the value that faculty
A faculty member highlighted that this members placed on engaging students in meaningful
emphasis is evident as early as the recruitment of new and transformative exercises and discussion, research-
faculty. inspired teaching, and innovative and engaging
teaching methods. A few participants echoed the
I think that part of the issue is that we recruit student perspective that accessibility and face-to-face
faculty based on research and we ask people to contact was important, since ever-increasing class
deliver teaching. sizes made accountability on the part of the faculty
member and the student difficult. Though current
Faculty members outlined that the unequal student ratings of instruction were generally
value of teaching and research was particularly considered an invalid way to measure effective
reflected in hiring, tenure, and promotion practices. teaching, most faculty members agreed that there
would need to be a broader overhaul of the system
Teaching Evaluations before an alternative system could be enacted.
Overall, faculty identified input indicators
Many participants noted that teaching is difficult to (such as teaching support, infrastructure and
measure, and the methods in place were inadequate. recognition of teaching) and process indicators (such
Some believed that student ratings of instruction (also as hiring and promotion processes and teaching
known as student evaluations of teaching or course evaluations), which may be valuable for further study
evaluations) were inaccurate, or were more indicative of teaching culture. Additionally, the focus group
of popularity, course content, or easiness of a course findings indicated existing teaching cultures included
rather than effective teaching. For example, both positive and negative examples of most of the
possible indicators.
So if teaching was really valued here, there
would be a mechanism for measuring the
effectiveness of the teaching that the faculty had
Graduate Student Focus Groups
confidence in, and that’s definitely not a

student opinion survey. Then there would be
Graduate student participants shared many of the
another mechanism that allowed that to be
same concerns as faculty and undergraduates.
factored into our PT decisions in a measurable,
Graduate students spoke about supporting innovative
justifiable, accountable way.
pedagogy and research-inspired teaching, support for

teaching development and recognition of teaching as
Another faculty member said:
noteworthy indicators of a valued teaching culture.

We have, I think, a sound course evaluation form
Supporting Innovative Pedagogy
because it focuses on how effective [you were]…

Now, you could be completely disorganized, and
Graduate student participants noted that adequately
never comb your hair, and speak too loud, or not
supported innovative pedagogy is an important
237
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. VIII

indicator of an institution’s teaching culture. They We have so many hours in our TA forms [forms
specifically focused their comments on the effective listing expected roles and hours]… and most of
use of technology and class time. The following them are done sitting in lectures, so why not put
student describes the potential damage to an those hours toward training a TA and feel you're
institutional teaching culture when innovative getting paid for these training hours… "I've
pedagogy is embraced without sufficient support: already taken this course and it would benefit me
a lot more to be trained."
I find universities rushing into it [online
learning] because they save money. While there is Graduate students also felt that professional
an important need for online learning, when it’s development for instructors is an indicator of a
entirely online learning without any opportunity teaching culture:
for in-course, and no support for teachers to
understand technology and run an online course, The biggest indication that the university doesn't
that’s when I see university’s not valuing really value teaching, is the fact that instructors
education and students. are not actually given any direction on how to
teach people. "You're here for research. We're
The availability of technology would be an going to put you in front of a classroom, and we
input indicator, but appropriate use of the technology don't really care whether you actually know what
and developing innovative methods are primarily you're doing there."
process indicators, dealing with the delivery of
programs. Again identifying both quantitative and Recognition of Teaching
valuable qualitative indicators.
Similar to faculty, graduate students identified
Research-inspired Teaching promotional incentives for teaching as indicative of a
culture that values teaching. The most frequently
A second major theme for graduate students was mentioned motivational incentive was recognition
research-inspired teaching; they viewed a quality through awards, though like the faculty, problems
teaching culture as one in which professors teach with the process of identifying and distributing
students how to find answers themselves rather than, awards were also raised.
simply, teaching them the answers. However, they
acknowledge that the methods must be implemented I mean if a school values teaching a lot, there
well, or the experience is not effective: would be some awards set up for that instead of
just the best scholars of the year, or the best
You are saying, here is your teacher and they are publisher of the year. Maybe they’d have a best
going to give you a bunch of materials and here teacher of the year.
you go teach yourself and your paper is due in
about 3 months. I felt that way. I’m teaching In addition to support for innovative
myself, so what am I paying you for? pedagogy, research-inspired teaching and support for
teaching development and recognition of teaching,
Support for Teaching graduate student participants shared many of the
same concerns as undergraduate students. Of the five
Similar to the faculty focus groups, students most frequently reported themes, graduate and
identified the need for support for teaching undergraduate students agreed that teacher
development for graduate students as represented in accessibility, coherent evaluation of teaching tools,
this comment: and supported best practices were reflections of an
238
Teaching Culture Perception
institution’s teaching culture. These themes are Some students repeatedly mentioned specific
further explored below. behaviours such as professors who walk around the
classroom, write their own textbooks, demonstrate
passion for the material, dress in a professional
Undergraduate Student Focus Groups manner, and arrive to class on time. The following
comment reveals a student’s interpretation:

The five most cited indicators of a quality teaching
culture to undergraduates were use of best teaching [Professors] don’t really have a professional
demeanour: showing up later than the students,
practices, specific behaviours associated with effective
not really dressing as a person who’s supposed to
teaching, teacher accessibility, evaluation of teaching,
be your superior and who’s supposed to be
and implementation of student feedback.
instilling all this information to you. You look up

to them to see where I can go. When they don’t
Best Practices
put the effort into coming on time, it makes it feel

like it’s just a side thing that they’re doing.
Students from all three institutions commonly

reported that professors’ use of best teaching practices
Teacher Accessibility
reflected value in teaching. The most frequent

practices centred on collaborative learning, such as
Participants reported that the availability and
group discussion, classroom participation, or
approachability of professors may demonstrate the
problem-based learning. Also of interest were
value they place on teaching. For example, in reply to
effective use of technology and simplification of
the question, “When you think of quality teaching,
complex concepts.
what comes to mind?” a student indicated:

I think professors should let students participate
Being accessible outside of the classroom hours and
more. They should let students discuss issues or
really [communicating] that you want the
questions themselves, and [professors’] conclusions
students to understand, that you’re going to spend
should come last. …The contemporary education
the energy to help them understand if they don’t
system discourages us to think critically. If they
get it in class.
give us all the conclusions, students are more likely

to think less.
Teacher accessibility may be classified as an

input indicator when related to time professors
The use of current and supported best
organize their time around teaching, research, and
practices is a process indicator because it is a means to
service as institution-supporting resources, and it may
deliver effective teaching. A valuable qualitative
also be a process indicator, related to the delivery of a
insight to understand teaching culture.
program.

Specific Behaviours
Teaching Evaluation

Undergraduate students identified specific
Like faculty, both graduate and undergraduate
behaviours that they associated with effective teaching
students identified the development of valid measures
as evidence of a culture that values teaching. These
of teaching effectiveness and opportunities for
behaviours are not coherent methods to be included
students to provide feedback to instructors on their
in best practices, but rather specific behaviours that
teaching as indicators of an institution’s teaching
students perceive as indicators of respect, expertise
culture. Undergraduate, graduate students and
and professionalism. Like best practices, they are also
faculty agreed upon the major flaws of the current
process indicators, related to delivery of the program.
239
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. VIII

evaluations for teaching. Moreover, undergraduate Discussion
students extended their concern with teaching

evaluations to include unmet expectations for the
Focus groups from three different institutions
implementation of students’ feedback.
identified complementary themes from focus groups
Undergraduate participants expressed discontent
of faculty, graduate students and undergraduate
with current measures of teaching effectiveness and
students. In many cases, faculty members identified
the need to develop more effective assessments.
input indicators – resources that currently exist such
Students suggested the process needed to be more
as centres for teaching and learning and teaching
sophisticated – including more questions on the
awards; however, they also mentioned that, while the
surveys, opportunities for mid-term feedback to
indicators were present, they were not sufficiently
professors, and the availability of an independent
resourced. Faculty members at each institution also
observer to provide feedback on teaching. One
indicated that aging infrastructure was a major barrier
student commented that:
to teaching effectiveness, and that the space for

teaching needs to be adequately designed to support
I have a professor who will continuously ask for
learning and student-teacher engagement. Both
feedback through the semester and not at the end.
support for teaching and infrastructure are types of
And I was wondering why the university’s not
input indicators, representing operational variables
providing the student feedback from previous
that exist within the university to support and
years to teachers.
enhance a culture of teaching quality. These are

factors over which an institution has control, and can
Implementation of student feedback
take steps to address, though they carry resource

implications.
Students mentioned that actually using student
Themes that related to process indicators
feedback and evaluations of instructors were
were viewed as more problematic, suggesting a
indicators of a quality teaching culture; though many
negative campus culture surrounding teaching. The
reported a lack of necessary change to address
two main themes that emerged as process indicators
grievances. Ensuring that faculty members utilize
from faculty, and echoed in the comments of
student feedback constructively to enhance their
students, suggest that teaching quality is frequently
teaching has the potential to impact teaching culture
overshadowed by a push for greater research, and that
by improving the standard of teaching at an
the processes in place to evaluate quality teaching are
institution. This will also empower students by
in need of improvement. Faculty members and
demonstrating that their opinions are valued.
students identified an unequal value of teaching and
Further, including the teaching evaluations in
research that was particularly reflected in hiring,
promotion, tenure, and hiring decisions indicates that
tenure, and promotion practices. Hiring practices
administrators value teaching. Implementing student
could be considered either input indicators, or process
feedback would be a process indicator, providing
indicators, and the process of hiring, tenure and
understanding about an institution’s current practices
promotion are accepted in the literature as important
leading to quality enhancement. The following
factors in an institutional culture (Cox et al., 2011;
comment illustrates the impact when there is not a
Kember, 1997).
constructive response:
Faculty, undergraduate and graduate

students equally emphasized the need to improve
Where does our feedback go? … like, for this
teaching evaluations. Students identified the need to
situation that we had, when we did report to the
ensure implementation of the feedback collected from
acting dean, it felt like there was nothing done
the students’ evaluations. Faculty and graduate
and the professor actually retaliated and we were
students also highlighted the need for valid and
like “Ooooh, so should we have said anything?”
240