Implementation: Making the Grand Office Hour Happen

In practice, we three would usually chat about our classes or pop culture until somebody showed up. Our conversations differed in some ways from our usual socializing. Criticizing our classes or the university was curbed by the fact that a student could appear in the meeting at almost any time, and we seemed to avoid the cognitive dissonance of adjusting to address student issues in a positive aspect. Other dynamics of the office hour were altered as well, including the professor’s power to “take-over” the student’s paper.  

When students did arrive for help with writing, we would share-screen the student essay, ask the student and each other questions, and offer our thoughts on their draft and strategies for revision. The share-screen function of Zoom in concert with the Grand Unified Office Hour offered a unique orientation towards student work. It is rare, except in assessment socialization processes for multiple professors to look at a single piece of student writing, and in the case of assessment socializations, the student is not present. All of us shared the concern that we should not posture ourselves as three judges looking down on the student work, so it was fortunate that we shared a basic pedagogical foundation of promoting student-empowerment.

Fortunately, the way that the Zoom UI orients the share-screen process literally sidelines the participants, turning the professors into tiny heads at the edge of the student work. There were worries that the student would feel subject to a jury of her superiors; however the presence of three professors often seemed to increase the ratio of student-to-professor speech. At least, no one professor wielded ultimate judgment of the essay, and all were more reticent to fill the airspace. In practice, affirmations of the students strengths could be tripled, while the weight of any disapproval could be divided since piling onto a particular writing issue was avoided.

four people looking at an essay on Zoom.
Sidelined: The Zoom UI renders professors as small compared to the student's essay.

Additionally, students could see that professors had their own perspectives and practices regarding what to focus on and how best to revise the existing ideas. In our case, one of us was more comfortable dealing with grammatical issues than the other two. This took the load off of an individual professor’s need to alter their affect from open-ended to detail-oriented. Further, because we three had our own methodologies, the student was able to view teaching practices as the result of a discourse that exists within the university structure. Students tended to leave the meetings sociably, expressing gratitude. 

Student-Centered Concerns:
  • Business. Although we marketed GUOH to our students as a unique opportunity to use multiple professors as a resource, there were students who needed to see their own professors for specific business regarding attendance, or their grade calculations, and our scheduled time for GUOH best fit their schedule. In these instances, the students were put into a separate breakout room with their professor of record. Occasionally, the requested professor would be late for the meeting, or be occupied in another breakout room. In instances like these, the students would engage in small talk with the existing professors provided they were not otherwise engaged. 
  • ii) Continuation of previous instruction. Just as some students needed to see their own professors regarding protected information, sometimes they were following up with specific changes made on a draft and in the interest of efficacy, the professor requested a breakout room be made. In these instances, the extra step of joining the GUOH may have been a mild burden to the students, but hopefully conveyed the nature of the university as a resource consisting of a network of people. 
  • iii) Retention in the waiting room. As instructors, we noted that students tended not to wait indefinitely in waiting rooms. When the waiting room became occupied, a professor would send a note to the waiting room that they would be soon admitted in. Notifying students proved to be easier with multiple professors present, as one professor could conference with the student while the other professor messaged students. When a single professor tried to multi-task in this way, it was clear from experience that chatting with one student while conferencing was difficult and also obvious that the professor was attempting to multitask. In cases where the students were from the same class and the nature of the meeting had not become too specific, multiple students were admitted into the room to ask general questions. In some instances, students expressed comfort with having other students present while their draft was discussed and the GUOH became a setting for multiple students discussing a draft or topic together. 

The Typical Meeting

What could be, perhaps, considered the ideal meeting occurred on a few occasions. In these, a student was introduced to the various members of the GUOH before being given permission to share their screen. The student would give a brief introduction to their essay and the topic. After reading a paragraph, Dr. Cheng offered precision grammatical instruction on a few sentences, while the others generally expressed their interest in what was being expressed and admiration for its most effective moments. In some cases, the professors would engage in a discussion about correct grammar or format, which tended to take on the mode of inquiry, rather than authority. The student would continue to read their essay, while commenting on their paragraphs. At points, a professor might discuss lines of reasoning in the essay that were missing clear connections and ask the student leading questions. Then, the students might express the key linking idea, and be encouraged to include the idea in the text. Prof. Adachi would often return to the text of the introduction and ask the student to evaluate the effectiveness with which they introduced their key ideas. In these moments as well, students would often express their main idea more clearly or thoroughly. The student would express their understanding of why changes would help their essay and commit to making revisions.

Unofficial Feedback and Salutations

The meetings typically ended with expressions of gratitude as the student signed off. In a pleasant surprise, these endings were pleasantly formal, as the professors generally did not extend the meeting with additional suggestions. The students seemed determined to make changes that they saw fit, and the mood was generally positive, with little perceived need to pressure the students to make any revisions they were not expressing. A spirit of collaboration seemed to permeate the atmosphere. 


Making the GUOH comply with student rights and needs.

Next: Conclusions