Week 4: What are you assuming?

What beliefs shape your teaching? This week is all about uncovering assumptions about our students, ourselves, and our relationships in the classroom.

Listen to the Week 3 podcast for more about how to form a habit of critical reflection, and my responses to each of the reflection prompts from last week.

At the heart of critical reflection is the work of surfacing assumptions—about students, learning, success, and even ourselves. This includes assumptions about power: who holds it, how it shows up in our classroom norms and policies, and what it means to share it thoughtfully and equitably. When we understand the beliefs beneath our choices, we gain the power to teach with greater intentionality and justice.

Sometimes, the best way to surface our assumptions is to pause and take a closer look at a real classroom moment—especially one that feels frustrating or familiar. Let’s walk through a scenario using Driscoll (1994)/Rolfe et al. (2001)’s¹ “Why? So what? What next?” model to see how reflection can reveal what’s operating beneath the surface.

Does this scenario resonate? A graduate-level instructor notices that many students are not completing the assigned readings, even though the material is central to the course discussions.

🧠 Why?

Why might students not be doing the reading?

I assumed graduate students would be intrinsically motivated to do the reading because they’ve chosen to be in this field. But maybe that assumption doesn’t hold. The readings are dense and time-consuming, and students have competing responsibilities—many are teaching, working, or juggling family commitments. I also haven't made the connection between the readings and class activities as explicit as I could. Perhaps students don’t see a clear purpose or payoff for doing them—or feel that the course is structured in a way that privileges the instructor’s voice over theirs.

🧐 So what?

So what are the consequences of this?

When students don’t do the reading, discussions are shallow and uneven. A few students dominate while others stay silent. I end up doing most of the talking just to move the conversation forward. It’s frustrating—and it makes me question whether my approach is working. If students aren’t engaging with the core texts, are they really developing the depth of understanding the course is supposed to foster? This could affect their long-term learning and their ability to synthesize complex material in their future work. And does it mean that I’ve set up the reading—and the course—as something they must prove themselves within, rather than co-construct?

🔄 What next?

What can I do differently moving forward?

I need to reconsider both the amount and the framing of the reading. Could I assign fewer texts but with more scaffolding—like short reading guides, low-stakes reflections, or collaborative note-taking? I could also start class with brief reading-based activities that reward preparation without penalizing students who are behind. And I might open a conversation with students about how they’re approaching the reading—what’s working, what’s not—and involve them in co-creating some solutions. That kind of transparency and collaboration might shift the classroom dynamic from compliance to shared ownership.

This kind of structured reflection helps us move from reaction to insight—and from insight to intentional change. But we don’t have to wait for challenges to arise to do this work. This week’s prompts invite you to slow down and examine the taken-for-granted beliefs shaping your teaching every day.

---

🔎 INQUIRE 

Start with a few questions to prompt deeper thinking.

• What teaching decisions do you make automatically? Where do those habits come from?

• What do you assume about your students' abilities, motivations, or values?

• What power dynamics are built into your policies, rubrics, or participation structures?

• What’s a “should” statement you hold about teaching? (e.g., “Students should...”)

---

✏️ APPLY

Engage in a short reflective practice.

This week, make a list of three assumptions you hold about your students, your course design, or your teaching role. Next to each assumption, ask yourself: What evidence do I have for this? What if this assumption is incomplete or flawed? Then, choose a policy, assignment, or classroom practice and trace back the assumptions that underlie it. For example, if you require camera-on participation in Zoom classes, ask what that requirement assumes about access, engagement, or power. Finally, experiment with Brookfield’s “Why? So what? What if?” approach: pick one teaching choice and interrogate it through those three questions in writing.

---

💬 CONNECT

Understanding the power dynamics at play in our classrooms.

Reflect with a colleague on classroom policies—grading, participation, attendance—and how they affect student agency and voice. Consider what it means to share power without abdicating responsibility, and how we could invite students into genuine co-authorship of the learning experience.

---

🧩 SCALE

A bonus for faculty developers.

Think about an assumption you hold about the faculty you serve (e.g., what they want, need, resist, or believe). Use the “Why? So what? What if?” framework to unpack that assumption in writing. Then reflect: How might this assumption shape your design choices? What would it look like to check this assumption in your next program or consultation? How do your structures either reinforce or challenge existing power hierarchies in your institution?

---

🎯 Still thinking about how to get students to do the reading? Here’s one way to tackle the scenario above…

Tip: Did you do the reading?

---

If you listen to the podcast that will be published later this week, I’ll share my responses to these prompts there. For access to the weekly podcast - and to support the work of Tips in providing free faculty development opportunities - consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Next week, we’ll shift our focus to feedback—how we give it, receive it, and use it to build relationships and trust.We’ll explore how feedback can be a site for shared reflection, not just correction.

---

© 2025 Tips for Teaching Professors

1. Thanks to a reader who alerted me to my error - I originally attributed this model to Brookfield, but it should be attributed to Driscoll (1994, 2007) and Rolfe et al. (2001), building on Borton’s (1970) work.

Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch, and teach; student concerns and process education. New York, Mcgraw-Hill

Driscoll J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 13, 47 -50

Driscoll, J. (2007). Practising Clinical Supervision: a Reflective Approach for Healthcare Professionals (2nd ed). Edinburgh, Baillière Tindall Elsevier

Rolfe., G et al. (2001) Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan