The purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to explore the phenomenon of strategies college instructors enact that support the academic success of historically underrepresented students [HUS] (i.e., first-generation, low-income, and/or Students of Color) experiencing academic struggle. A critical-constructivist epistemology was employed (Jaekel, 2021; Levitt, 2021). The theoretical framework combined elements of critical pedagogy (e.g. Darder et al., 2017; Kincheloe, 2008), pedagogy of care (Noddings, 2003, 2005), radical love (e.g. Freire, 1970; hooks, 2018; Lane, 2018), critical care pedagogy (e.g. Chinn & Falk‐Rafael, 2018; Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1997), and a student-ready institutional framework (McNair et al., 2016). The research was guided by four questions: (1) How do HUS understand academic success and struggle? (2) How do HUS identify instructors who they believe support their academic success? (3) How do instructors understand academic success and struggle for HUS? (4) How do instructors enact academic support for HUS?
Data were collected in three phases. In phase one, a qualitative questionnaire was sent to 143 undergraduate students who identified as first-generation, low-income, and/or Students of Color and who had experienced academic struggle while enrolled at The Ohio State University. The questionnaire asked students to nominate instructors who they believed supported their academic success. This study was unique in that students could nominate any instructor regardless of teaching role (i.e., tenure-track faculty, lecturers, graduate teaching assistants, or staff). In phase two, 14 students who completed the questionnaire accepted an invitation to participate in semi-structured interviews. In phase three, six instructors who were nominated by students agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews and to permit observation of their teaching.
Several rounds of qualitative coding strategies were used to analyze data (Saldaña, 2021). Individual participant narratives were incorporated to provide thick description of the case. Thematic analysis revealed student participants understood academic success and struggle in terms of Performance Measures, Growth Mindset, and Integrating Knowledge, while instructor participants understood academic success and struggle in terms of Productive Behaviors, Attitudes and Outlooks, and Tangible Outcomes. Additionally, students identified supportive instructors by using one or more of the following themes, which were described using in vivo codes: Creates More Motivation for Me, Puts the Joy into Learning, Didn’t Make You Feel Dumb, Made Material Understandable, Not Here to Hurt Your Grades, Treats Us as More Than Just Students, and If I Ever Needed Anything.
Student and instructor data were synthesized to create a Student-Ready Critical Care Pedagogy, consisting of three key themes: Creating a Culture of Learning, Demonstrating Care, and Meeting Students Where They Are. Actions instructors can take to implement this pedagogy include the following: guide students to master the learning process while honoring student autonomy and capacity to create knowledge, integrate care for both teaching and learning to communicate to students that they matter, and convey to students that they are capable of success through embodying a mindset that all students can learn.
While the literature informing the study design suggested identity would be a key factor in conceptualizing academic success and struggle, students and instructors did not emphasize it. Students may have either thought identity was not relevant or downplayed its importance to focus on getting the academic help they needed. While instructors were conscious of issues impacting HUS, they believed it was important to help all students regardless of background.
Implications for theory included adopting the model of Student-Ready Critical Care Pedagogy, centering identity and social justice when enacting caring teaching, and practicing both caring-about and caring-for (Noddings, 2003). Specific actions to implement this pedagogy were presented. Implications for practice included prioritizing teaching in the tenure process, creating instructor development programing, and realigning the mission and vision for Land-Grant universities. Suggestions for future research were also reviewed, such as further examining the intersection of student identity and academic struggle.