{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036436612210341474, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01157066256937694, 'mean_word_length': 5.039007763681121, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From “Slow” to “Being ‘Lazy’ and Slowing Down” and the Impact on Student Learning

This paper presents a case study on the measurable impact of a decolonized approach to the Slow Movement on student learning in a graduate seminar. The study operationalizes principles of Being Lazy and Slowing Down (BLSD)—that is, to make peace with not doing or being productive, to de-privilege the need for a result, and to decenter the mind as the primary source of knowledge in order to make space for the body and spirit. The study then examines the uptake of these principles into the seminar’s instructional approach, curricular design, and semester-long project. Textual analysis of the project shows minimal adoption by students of the principles of BLSD. However, student feedback obtained through semistructured oral interviews provides insight into this minimal impact: it suggests that even a decolonized approach to BLSD is a privileged position not afforded to all.


INTRODUCTION
I, M'Balia, am a teacher educator in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). I work in a department of curriculum and teaching (C and T) where I prepare current and future teachers to work with learners of English as an additional language. Concerning for me as a teacher educator is that due to burnout, poor preparation, and a host of other factors, half of all US kindergarten through high school (K-12) public school teachers leave the profession by their fifth year in the classroom (Ingersoll, Merrill, and May 2014). This rate of attrition includes invested leavers (Glazer 2018), committed teachers who exit the profession as acts of rebellion against the neoliberal conditions of teaching and learning. In contrast to invested leavers, however, are invested stayers, like me. We invested stayers understand that "central to resilience and persistence" in the field is the ability to "embrac[e] change . . . through inquiry, creativity, and innovation" (Rodriguez, Hallman, and Pastore-Capuana 2020, xi). Thus, as an invested stayer, I seek not only to train my students for the curricular and instructional demands of the profession, but also to prepare them in body, mind, and spirit to remain in the profession and thrive.
It is in this spirit that Marta and I share my attempt to create a graduate seminar for current and future educators designed to engage and foster contemplative and embodied practices. The course incorporates principles adapted from an hour-long, multi-day professional development webinar The call to be lazy and slow down is in dialogue with a global, yet Western-centric, movementthe Slow Movement. The Slow Movement calls out the pace of Western life and advocates for an intentional and mindful engagement with food (Petrini 2001), city dwelling (Knox 2005), life (Honoré 2004(Honoré , 2013Parkins and Craig 2006), and scholarship and pedagogy (Berg and Seeber 2016;Harland 2016;Hartman and Darab 2012). The academy's adoption of Slow is set against the increasing forces of "competition, privatization, efficiency, and self-reliance" (Hartman and Darab 2012, 52). These forces mark academic life and misrecognize academic workloads such that service masquerades as teaching at the expense of research productivity and student learning. The adoption of Slow in the academy centers the importance of "care and attention" in the ways we engage with students and our research, and it calls us to "attempt to live in the present in a meaningful, sustainable, thoughtful, and pleasurable way" (Parkins and Craig 2006, ix, italics in original). Finally, Slow promotes teaching that prioritizes helping students connect with the course material and one another (Berg and Seeber 2016). It "engag[es] with ideas through deep reflection, experiential learning and reflexivity, ultimately resulting in critical insight, creativity, and innovation" (Hartman and Darab 2012, 58).

Decolonizing Slow
Although I embrace the neoliberal critique of time and the pace of life offered by the Slow Movement, I lament the movement's failure to address the privilege, elitism, and Western cultural influence that underlie it (Crossley 2003;Sonnenfeld 2001). While some bodies are shielded by the privilege afforded their rank, socioeconomic class, gender, and/or race (Mendick 2014), others are subjected to stereotypes, shame, and the pressure to "be for others" (Shahjahan 2019, 785) in ways that limit their ability to slow down. For these bodies-principally "the working classes, the non-elites, those for whom the lazy label has been used to demonize, pathologize, or denigrate" (Gildersleeve 2018, 70)-to slow down, they must first decolonize the notion of Slow. This process of decolonizing "Slow" starts by embracing the term lazy in our professional lives in order to free the body, mind, and spirit from settler colonization (Tuck and Yang 2012). In embracing lazy, these three elements can be reengaged as a source of knowledge construction that casts off the colonial shackles of dialectic Western pedagogy and makes space for embodied, relational, and spiritual ways of being, learning, and existing within the academy (Ng 1998).
Educators can bring these embodied, relational, and spiritual ways into spaces of teaching and learning through a number of practices. First, they can adopt and engage in "deliberate and meaningful" rituals (Mayuzumi 2006, 9). These rituals "ground us in the present" (Shahjahan 2015, 496), and they shift our focus away from the need for a result and toward our internal landscape (Bailey 2020). In addition to rituals, educators can take up practices that invite students to ponder, center silence, actively listen, contemplate, and reflect in ways that nurture spontaneity and creativity (Shahjahan 2015), rather than emphasize product or doing (Hart 2004). In the end, these acts of being lazy and slowing down benefit us and our teaching and potentially our students. It was with the desire to "transform" and "extend" (Boyer 1990, 24) these ritual, embodied, and contemplative practices into my work as a teacher educator that I designed a new 16-week graduate seminar (C and T 896: The Internationalized Curriculum). In the next section, I explain the "critical features" (Desimone 2009, 183) of BLSD drawn from the webinar and operationalized to foster student engagement and ultimately student learning in Thomas, M'Balia, and Marta Carvajal-Regidor. 2021. "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down"

TEACHING PRACTICES
In keeping with BLSD's neoliberal and postcolonial critique, the seminar had three explicit goals. Those goals were to (1) decolonize the Western underpinnings of TESOL scholarship that exclude non-Western ways of knowing (Hardaker and Sabki 2018), (2) interrogate the monolingual assumptions and English-language medium expectations of academic teaching and scholarship, and (3) privilege non-Western ways of looking at the world and its diverse populations through the readings of non-Western authors.
The seminar also had an implicit goal to foster engagement among students and with the course material. This goal was advanced in several ways. First, to foster in-class discussions by addressing student fears of saying the wrong things, the syllabus included the following statement: "There are no right or wrong answers, just more theoretically grounded ways of approaching and talking about topics" (Thomas 2017). Second, to encourage depth of reading, weekly readings were limited to three journal articles. Third, to allow students an opportunity to ponder the course readings, I designed the syllabus so that every four weeks a full class period was set aside for students to revisit the readings, as well as to discuss their progress on the course-long assessment. The assessment tasked students to construct an internationalized syllabus for a future or imagined course. Divided into five tasks spaced a month apart, the assessment required students to identify and write explicit course learning objectives, create active learning activities, incorporate formal and informal assessments and evaluations of student learning, and review and comment on each classmate's syllabus draft. The assessment, feedback, and grade for each task was based on the most recent syllabus's incorporation of prior instructor or peer feedback.
Five graduate students enrolled in the seminar, including Marta. The students were a diverse group in terms of national origin, languages spoken, fields and levels of study, and participation in university life-from a full-time K-12 teacher, to full-time students who were also graduate teaching assistants, to a full-time student without teaching obligations. Initially, I was pleased with the progress of the seminar; the readings were manageable and the syllabus project was moving forward. However, about five weeks into the course, I noticed a waning in the energy level of the group (my own included), and I wondered how much of this change in our engagement could be attributed to several environmental factors. For example, the seminar was held on Thursday evenings from 5:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. in a bright, but small, conference room. The room contained a long oval table, which both limited movement and focused our attention in one direction toward the room's dry-erase boards. The east wall of the room featured floor to ceiling windows that overlooked the building's parking lot and the university's football stadium. These wall-length windows allowed the class to observe the setting sun, as well as the gradual shifts from summer to fall and ultimately to winter. This unanticipated participation in the temporal cycle reminded me that while I had mindfully incorporated principles of BLSD into the design of my curriculum, I had failed to consider the implementation of these principles into my weekly instructional routine.
Upon this realization, I informed the class of my desire to address the temporal impact on our class engagement by incorporating embodied and contemplative practices into our instructional time. I shared Shahjahan (2015) with them and I discussed the impact the article had on the initial design of the . "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down" and the Impact on Student Learning." Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 no. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.12 5 course. I also assigned the paper as an optional reading. To introduce the concept of being lazy and slowing down in an embodied way, I showed a recording of a Japanese tea ceremony to the class (宗萱 茶道學院 2017). The tea ceremony is a meditative and embodied act of preparing tea. It consists of multiple cycles of tea preparation in silence and in ritual engagement with action (Mayuzumi 2006). By the third cycle of the ceremony, the audible groans provided the needed segue to discuss the potential affordances and discomforts of a slowed down and lazy approach to our seminar meetings.
From that evening on, I began to center silence in my questioning and answering of students. I made a conscious shift to maintain awareness of the physical body during the mental process of learning by providing rest and comfort breaks. I began a ritual of bringing my beloved teakettle to class, as well as cookies and fruit juice, to mark the beginning of class with the nourishment of our bodies. This act led to a student surprising the class with a box of freshly baked cookies. In addition, I regularly decorated the oval table where we congregated with flameless tea candles and colorful paper flowers. With these changes, I hoped to facilitate students' mental, physical, and spiritual transition from the busyness of their workday to the intentionally slowed-down seminar space.
A couple of weeks into our new routine, Marta informed me she would miss an upcoming class due to her participation in our university's International Trivia Night (ITN). An event in celebration of International Education Week, ITN highlights the local knowledges and lived experiences of the university's international student populations. Rather than authorize one student's absence from class, I saw this event as an opportunity to enact "practical laziness" (Gildersleeve 2018, 697)-that is, to engage tactically with the neoliberal pressure to use time productively. Instead of adhering to the syllabus, I scrapped my scheduled lesson plan for that evening (being lazy) and adopted an alternate activity that both supported the underlying objectives of the course and encouraged knowledge sharing and community building amongst students (slowing down). With a department colleague, their daughter, and friends and partners in tow, Marta, myself, and two students from the seminar participated in ITN. Our team-"Too Cool for School"-represented three continents and over two hundred years of lived (embodied) experience and evidential commitment toward knowledge.
While BLSD presented a compelling framework for the design of the graduate seminar and its pedagogical approach, I was curious to evaluate its impact on student learning. I elicited feedback on my explicit and implicit attempts to apply the principles of BLSD in my teaching by inviting a colleague to review my syllabus and observe my classroom teaching. At the end of the seminar, I conducted a textual analysis of students' syllabus projects to determine if principles of BLSD were incorporated into the final task. Specifically, I looked for indicators that would suggest a "meaningful measure of difference" (Rutz et al. 2012, 46) in the organization, activities, and linguistic content incorporated between the third and final syllabus submissions, which reflects the point in the project where students received explicit suggestions to incorporate principles of BLSD into their syllabus project. Following the textual analysis, Marta conducted the student interviews. In the next section, we present the procedures and outcomes for both processes.

STUDENT LEARNING
Assessing the impact of the principles of BLSD on student learning presents both a philosophical and practical challenge. On a philosophical level, BLSD advocates resisting the neoliberal Thomas, Carvajal-Regidor . "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down" and the Impact on Student Learning." Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 no. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.12 6 influences to "focus on a result with the passage of time" (Shahjahan and Mayuzumi 2016). Thus, to assess student learning at the end of a course privileges the desire for concrete performance within a set time. On a practical level, traditional assessments of student learning involve "breaking down complex phenomena into discrete and depersonalized parts that can be measured and judged" (Franzese andFelten 2017, referencing Barbezat andBush 2014). Such a course of action goes against the contemplative "focus on wholeness, synthesis, and self-knowledge" (Barbezat and Bush 2014).
With a nod to both the philosophical and practical concerns, I turned to Franzese and Felton (2017) who stress the adoption of assessment practices for contemplative pedagogies that are "methodologically sound," have "consequential validity" (referencing Hutchings, Kinzie, and Kuh 2015, 41), are carried out with students, and are made public. With these mandates in mind-and drawing upon my disciplinary training as a discourse analyst-a textual analysis of the final submission of students' semester-long project was carried out as direct evidence of their learning. To gather indirect evidence of this learning, and to unpack the results of the textual analysis, I invited Marta to join me as a co-inquirer by spearheading oral interviews of her classmates. After seeking ethics approval for the study and informed consent, three students agreed to participate, with Marta contributing her syllabi as part of the dataset (n = 4).

Textual analysis
A close analysis was conducted of the dataset. Across the data samples, Marta and I looked for explicit references to "being lazy" and "slowing down." These included the incorporation into student syllabi space for not doing, contemplation, or pondering as a way of slowing down the curricular pace. We also looked for the crafting of assessment that deprivileged the need for results over time by emphasizing self-graded or partner-graded assessments and the incorporation of embodied and/or grouped activities that allowed students to connect with classmates. We anticipated seeing these markers within the course descriptions, learning objectives, in-class activities, and assigned tasks. Additionally, we looked for implicit references (euphemisms) to BLSD, such as nominal and verbal forms of "break," "rest," "engage," and "ponder." We examined how many pages of reading were assigned in a given week, and we took note of whether the proposed assessments centered solely in the mind, or if they invited responses that incorporated the body and the spirit.
Of the four data samples (DS), one made two direct references to the notion of slowing down: (1) "I believe that in learning a language, it is imperative that we slow down to think about what we as individuals care about," and (2) "In order to slow down and have the opportunity to practice more oneon-one speaking . . . " (DS1). A second data sample explicitly referenced "a short five-minute break in the middle of each 75-minute course meeting" (DS2). The same data sample also referenced making the syllabus "less intimidating and more convenient" by posting "course regulations and policies . . . [in] a separate document with the course schedule and assignment descriptions" (DS2). This particular reference indexed our department's tendency to produce syllabi that contained multiple pages of university regulations and policies. Besides these few references, no other data samples explicitly referenced principles of BLSD, nor did the principles surface implicitly-not in terms of policies of acceptance of late work, course objectives, or as a statement in the typical university boilerplate. . "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down" and the Impact on Student Learning." Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 no. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.12 7

Student interviews
To unpack the limited presence of BLSD in the student work, we invited the four remaining members of the class to be interviewed, and three accepted. The interviews were designed to obtain (Q1) student impressions of the elements of BLSD incorporated into the seminar, (Q2) the impact of these elements on their level of engagement in the course, and (Q3) their reflection on the role BLSD principles played in their syllabus project or might play in their future classroom teaching. The interviews were conducted and transcribed by Marta in the semester following the seminar's conclusion. While it is preferable to conduct such interviews at the conclusion of a course, the delay allowed students to engage in a semester of teaching where they could reflect on their use (or not) of BLSD principles in their own classrooms. The practice of building in time for reflection on new practice is in keeping with similar studies of teacher education where there is interest in how students' thinking about and preparation for future teaching are of interest (Roberts-Harris 2014). Finally, it should be noted that interviews are indirect measures of student learning-they do not provide valid or reliable measures of learning (Luce and Kirnan 2016;Price and Randall 2008). However, they do provide access to students' embodied voice-their words, laughter, and rises and falls in intonation (Carozzi 2005).
In the end, Marta conducted three 45-to-60-minute, one-on-one, six-question interviews. The interviews were transcribed and gender-neutral aliases were assigned to keep responses confidential and to anonymize the data (including from myself). Marta and I together reviewed and coded the interview responses. We drew upon In Vivo coding (Saldaña 2016), a form of open or emergent/inductive coding that privileges participants' language (it is reflective of their "voice") as data. Using this coding procedure, we were able to find threads and points of contrast between participant understandings and ways of talking about the interview topics. We looked for shared themes across the keywords that surfaced in participants' responses, such as "time-space constraint," "neoliberalism," "a permanent conflict," "a tension," "unsettling," "comfortable," and "convention" (Dani); "teachers . . . jump right on the silence," "time to fill in the silence," "let the silence sit" (Sami); "her teaching style," "how she was in the class," "voice," "reflect," "think" (Toni). The keywords pointed toward tensions in the taking up of BLSD principles by students within their own pedagogical practice. These tensions surfaced across participant responses in three thematic areas: idiosyncratic instructional style, normalized expectations of teacher practice, and institutional or contextual constraints.
In the next section, Marta and I present excerpts from the student interviews that describe these tensions. We introduce the responses through participant quotes that provide an overarching theme for the excerpts discussed in each section. In sharing this data, we readily acknowledge the inherent ideology of selecting and presenting participant data, and thus we attempt to contextualize the data presented by providing excerpts of the interview questions.

FINDINGS "Oh, there's tea today, I'm going for it" (Toni)
Students were asked about their impression of the seminar's BLSD-inspired instructional strategies (Q1) and whether they "impacted student engagement with the course" (Q2). Their impressions and responses to the impact of these practices were varied. For example, while having food in class was noted by most, and dimming the lights and bringing tea candles were "cool" (Toni), the . "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down" and the Impact on Student Learning." Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 no. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.12 8 attempt to center students' attention through activities like the tea ceremony received a mixed reception. It was described as "a little hard to watch" (Sami) and "weird" and "unsettling" (Dani). In contrast, International Trivia Night was described as "enjoyable" (Sami). Ultimately, the incorporation of the BLSD elements were not described as a motivating force for engaging in class. As Toni states, "I don't know that there was a specific thing where it was like, 'Oh, there's tea today, I'm going for it.'" Instead, these practices were described as affordances of being in the seminar: When . . . whenever you're having, I think, tea or cookies or whatever it may be . . . um, even fun with the trivia night. I think it allows you to let your guard down and not be as timid to voice your opinions. -Toni . . . you never know, there might be students who really are tryin' to think deeply about something. Um, but like I said, I definitely like the idea of, you know, like, having a more relaxed atmosphere and not having that, you know, like, "I have to speak for participation" sort of like stress or pressure. -Sami

"That's how M'Balia is" (Toni)
Specifically, the enactment of principles of BLSD was attributed to an idiosyncratic or personal teaching style rather than to an intentional pedagogical stance. In fact, one such stance, referenced in the data as "silence," draws from the field of TESOL-a field which both Marta and I are a part-and the pedagogical concept of "wait time" (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2017).  . "From "Slow" to "Being 'Lazy' and Slowing Down" and the Impact on Student Learning." Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9 no. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.12

"Maybe I watched too much Dead Poets Society as a child?" (Toni)
Additionally, in response to questions about the likelihood of adopting BLSD practices into their own teaching (Q3), students expressed tensions concerning professional expectations about instructional practice. Their responses suggested an inherent conflict between expected pedagogical actions and BLSD as a practice.
I think there's a permanent conflict when you think about how students need time to learn and how students don't learn at the same pace and how teaching is generally conducted. I do not escape from that because I've been teaching every semester, and I've been teaching things and you know . . . which were critical of content coverage, and then when I think of [the] number of readings that I had and number of things that were on the syllabus, I was, like, cramming a lot of things . . . I'm not for diminishing the number of readings either, because I think of things that are given in a seminar, in the seminars that we are reading that you do, but you don't need to be talking about all of these in class and having an explanation of all of these, but it's also part of the kind of personal, intellectual journey to be reading . Ultimately, Dani, Sami, and Toni's comments highlight an unacknowledged agency to adopt and execute the principles of BLSD in the classroom space. My (M'Balia) position as tenure-track faculty authorized and legitimated me to make strategic curricular and instructional decisions not readily available to graduate teaching assistants or K-12 educators (both of whom tend to have mandated curricular and pedagogical expectations), or multi-term lecturers (who often teach large classes and whose reappointments are more immediately tied to student feedback than tenure-track faculty). While the unequal privilege across racialized and gendered bodies to slow down and be lazy was the primary impetus for me to adopt principles of BLSD into my course, the unequal access to do so across hierarchical positions of teaching was sadly overlooked.

DISCUSSION
In terms of centering principles of BLSD within my academic space, the seminar was a start. It demonstrates the ways in which these principles can be incorporated and potentially taken up by students. However, analysis of the written student assignments and oral interview data suggests three reasons for the lack of clear and direct evidence of their impact. First, while my peer evaluation was strong, there is a recognizable learning curve to designing and teaching a new course. In addition, the principles of BLSD incorporated into the course's instruction were not explicitly discussed with students from the start. Also, a more focused emphasis tying the readings back to the physical and concrete properties of syllabus planning (writing objectives, for example) was in order. Furthermore, the course should have taken a firmer and more direct stance toward the complex and related ideas of neoliberal practices as part of our readings. I needed to foreground the anticolonial stance more in order to highlight the ideological, as well as practical, aspects of BLSD.
Second, the data collected for this study was limited. More data and across multiple student artifacts (Willett et al. 2014) would have provided more robust results. For example, a grading rubric could have been created that had an explicit mandate for students to incorporate principles of BLSD into their work. While such a step results in the requirement for a specific result (Shahjahan 2015), the grading rubric would have given the class an opportunity to discuss the challenges of implementing BLSD. Additionally, I could have required students to organize and teach a BLSD-inspired lesson as part of the seminar requirement. This would have provided students with a safe and authorized space to engage with the principles. Finally, I could have had students write periodic reflection papers that encouraged them to contemplate the role and challenge of BLSD as a pedagogical practice. In addition to actively engaging with student tensions surrounding BLSD practices, these activities would have brought the body forefront in the engagement of "knowledge construction" (Batacharya and Wong 2018, 8).
Third, Shahjahan and Mayuzumi's webinar was not designed for pedagogical application, but for individual application in the care of self. The webinar's authors advocate for such care while acknowledging the impact macro-structural issues (such as being tenured) can have on one's ability to be lazy and slow down. In fact, a similar point is made by Rutz et al. who conclude that "faculty whose positions are secure more readily incorporate what they learn from faculty-development opportunities into their teaching practices" (2012, 44). Thus, while I (M'Balia) recognized the need to "be lazy and slow down" for myself, I failed to consider the privilege my position as a tenure-track professor afforded me to incorporate these practices into my teaching. This privileged position was noted by interview participants as structural tensions inherent in applying BLSD to their imagined curricular and instructional practice, as well as their present teaching roles. To address these tensions, students needed explicit classroom instruction and guided opportunities in order to discuss, strategize, and take up principles of BLSD in their practice (van Huizen, van Oers, and Wubbels 2005). Such an explicit in-class discussion might have engendered student-initiated solutions that could create a sense of self-efficacy (Bandura 1997) in students to shape, alter, or resist the neoliberal aspects of schooling on their professional lives.

CONCLUSION
This single case study provides a personal and reflective stance on one educator's attempt to incorporate embodied and contemplative practices into her teaching as a way to address the neoliberal impact of academia in higher education. These practices were inspired by a professional development workshop and they were incorporated into a seminar design in an effort to positively impact student learning. In the end, the data collected and analyzed reinforce a key observation from the SoTL fieldthat employment status may shape new and contingent faculty's willingness to risk low student evaluations by adopting new or unauthorized pedagogical practices (Condon et al. 2016;Rutz et al. 2012). Perhaps what is needed, then, are explicit opportunities for students to contemplate and incorporate these principles into their teaching.
The findings from this case study, though limited, hold three important implications for SoTL research. First, the paper reveals the benefits of working collaboratively with students as co-inquirers. Marta's status as a student within the class undoubtedly resulted in a richer, more dialogic, interview process. She was able to elicit student responses that participants may not have felt comfortable directly sharing with me as the instructor. Second, the study demonstrates the role textual analysis (discourse, thematic, and corpus analysis) can play in analyzing written and oral student data. Not only do these methods provide a systematic way of foregrounding language patterns, but also they reveal the linguistic means by which power, ideology, and agency are exhibited through language. Lastly, the findings point out the usefulness of reflecting on a "singular experience of a specific course during a particular term" (Willett et al. 2014, 23). Such contextualized data provides guidance in planning for ideological and embodied shifts in classroom practice. This can lead to more effective teaching practice, refined learning objectives, and perhaps improved student learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A sincere "thank you" to "Dani," "Sami," and "Toni" for allowing us to write about (and publicly share) our time together; to the Center for Teaching Excellence, whose TREAT funding supported the presentation of this paper at ISSOTL Bergen; and to our reviewers for their productive and supportive comments.