Creating a trust-based classroom begins with an essential mindset: students are doing their best. When we approach teaching from this perspective, we move away from punitive measures, fear-based management, and skepticism about students’ honesty. Instead, we foster an environment of learning, growth, and empowerment. Trusting students does not mean ignoring accountability; it means designing courses, policies, and practices that build their confidence and skills while treating them as equal partners in their education.
Course Design: Scaffold, Support, and Empower
A well-designed course sets the stage for trust by providing clarity, flexibility, and opportunities for growth.
- Transparent policies: Clearly outline expectations while building flexibility. For instance, rigid attendance or late-work penalties can be replaced with policies such as “grace days,” where students can submit work late without penalty. Such policies demonstrate compassion and respect for the complexities of students’ lives (Nilson, 2016; Hammond, 2015).
- Scaffolded assignments: Break significant projects into smaller, more manageable parts, such as proposals, annotated bibliographies, and rough drafts, to reduce student anxiety and provide opportunities for meaningful feedback at each step, improving learning outcomes (Ambrose, 2010).
- Collaborative syllabus design: During the first class, engage students in setting community and classroom norms and goals. A co-created syllabus session fosters accountability and trust, as students feel ownership of the course structure (Cook-Sather et al., 2014).
Teaching example: In one of my recent courses, I included a “workshop day” for students to peer review each other’s drafts of case conceptualizations. This scaffolding helped students approach final projects with more confidence, and peer feedback enriched their understanding of the assignment and deepened engagement with the course materials.
Active Learning: From Fear to Engagement
Fear of failure can stifle creativity and learning. Active learning strategies help students take risks and engage deeply with material in a low-pressure environment.
- Low-stakes practice: Use frequent formative assessments such as polls, quizzes, games, or writing and discussion prompts to reinforce and retrieve essential concepts. These activities encourage participation without the anxiety of high-stakes grading (Freeman et al., 2014; Agarwal, 2019).
- Normalize mistakes to promote growth: Frame errors as essential steps in the learning process. For example, during group problem-solving, ask students to identify and reflect on common mistakes, transforming failure into an opportunity for growth (Dweck, 2006).
What to avoid: Grading active learning activities as if they were summative assessments is inappropriate. Students should feel safe to experiment without fear of punishment or penalty.
Class Participation: Meeting Students Where They Are
Participation policies can often feel punitive, especially for students who struggle with anxiety, barriers to verbal and social engagement, and students with accommodations due to neurodiversity. Trust-based strategies offer multiple pathways for meaningful contribution and connection.
- Flexible participation options: Allow students to choose how they engage, including online discussion boards, written reflections, video reflections, or in-class individual or group work. Recognizing diverse participation and communication styles builds inclusivity and reduces the pressure to perform in a single, narrow way (Gay, 2018; Dweck, 2006).
- Student-led discussions: Rotate leadership roles for class discussions, allowing students to take ownership of their learning with their peers. Provide guidance and resources to ensure they feel confident in this role.
Teaching example: One student-led discussion in my class led to unexpected insights when a quieter student shared their expertise on a niche topic that another student was interested in. This reinforced how trust in students can bring out hidden strengths and foster the courage to share in a positive classroom climate.
Grading and Feedback: Support and Guide, Don’t Punish and Penalize
Grading practices should reflect the belief that students can grow and improve. Penalizing mistakes undermines trust and discourages effort. Instead, focus on feedback that builds skills, enriches learning, and deepens understanding.
- Revise and resubmit: Allow students to revise and resubmit work for a higher grade and additional feedback. This approach emphasizes learning over performance, encourages students to take risks in their initial attempts, and reduces fear and anxiety over grades.
- Rubrics as roadmaps: Use detailed and intentional rubrics, not just to grade but as tools to teach students what quality work looks like and what to aspire to in their work. Share rubrics in advance, collaborate with students to create or adjust rubrics, and encourage students to self-assess before submitting assignments (Brookhart, 2013).
- Feedback as an opportunity for dialogue: Invite students to meet to discuss feedback and revisions. These conversations deepen their understanding and demonstrate your investment in their success.
Teaching with Technology: Empower and Encourage, Don’t Police and Instill Fear
Technology tools like plagiarism detectors and AI checkers can erode trust if used as punitive measures. Instead, these tools should guide and empower students. Hutson (2024) identifies the challenges of AI in education as the blurred boundaries between human and AI-generated content, the inadequacy of traditional plagiarism definitions, and the need to balance the ethical integration of AI with the preservation of critical thinking, originality, and intellectual property standards.
Educators should teach students about proper citation practices and academic integrity while allowing space for mistakes as part of the learning process. Replace accusatory language in syllabi with language that supports student learning. For instance, providing workshops on academic writing and citation or encouraging dialogue about the ethical use of AI tools fosters a supportive learning environment rather than punitive. Hutson (2024) emphasizes the importance of adapting pedagogical approaches and institutional policies to address the evolving challenges of plagiarism in the era of generative AI while upholding the core values of academic integrity and honesty.
A 2023 study highlights the ethical and practical challenges associated with AI detectors, such as inaccuracies in identifying student-generated content and the unintended reinforcement of a guilty until proven innocent narrative (Ifelebuegu et al., 2023). Such practices can lead to mistrust between students and faculty, harming the educational relationship. Additionally, reliance on these tools may discourage students from taking risks in their learning for fear of being wrongly accused of dishonesty (Ifelebuegu et al., 2023).
Assuming the best about students transforms the classroom from a place of fear and performance to one of trust and growth. By designing courses that scaffold learning, encouraging participation in diverse ways, and using grading and feedback as tools for improvement rather than punishment, faculty create environments where students feel empowered to take risks and grow. Trust is not a passive belief—it’s an active choice to see students as capable, honest, and deserving of our support. What changes will you make to assume the best about your students?
Mindith R. Rahmat, PsyD, is a core faculty member at Antioch University, where she specializes in compassion-focused pedagogy, trauma-sensitive mindfulness, and mindful self-compassion. With over 25 years of experience teaching yoga, meditation, and holistic wellness practices, she integrates these methodologies into her classroom, fostering equitable, intentional learning environments that promote well-being, resilience, and flourishing.
References
Agarwal, P. K. (2019). Retrieval practice and Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher-order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 189.
Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Hutson, J. (2024). Rethinking Plagiarism in the Era of Generative AI. Journal of Intelligent Communication, 3(2), 20–31.
Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. John Wiley & Sons.
Ifelebuegu, A. O., Kulume, P., & Cherukut, P. (2023). Chatbots and AI in Education (AIEd) tools: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2).