“Office Hours are Kind of Weird”: Reclaiming a Resource to Foster Student-Faculty Interaction

Abstract

Office hours reserve time and space for student-faculty interaction, a benchmark for engaging students in educationally purposive activities. Our study finds a mismatch between the institutionally intended purpose of office hours and student perceptions of office hours. We examine student perceptions of office hours with results from a survey administered at a public research institution. We conclude that it is necessary for institutions — large public research institutions, particularly – to do more to demonstrate to students the value for interacting with faculty and to consistently support the development of relationships between undergraduates and those who teach them.

Full text

14 Volume 12 ● 2017
“Office Hours are Kind of Weird”: Reclaiming a Resource to Foster Student-
Faculty Interaction
Margaret Smith, PhD
Managing Editor, Contexts
Yujie Chen, PhD
Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Journalism and Communication
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Rachel Berndtson, PhD
Assistant Director of Academic Programs, Department of Geographical Sciences
University of Maryland, College Park
Kristen M. Burson, PhD
AvH Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Fritz-Haber Institute of the Max Plank Society
Berlin, Germany
Whitney Griffin, PhD
Lecturer, Department of Horticultural Sciences
Texas A&M University
Office hours reserve time and space for student-faculty interaction, a benchmark for engaging
students in educationally purposive activities. Our study finds a mismatch between the
institutionally intended purpose of office hours and student perceptions of office hours. We
examine student perceptions of office hours with results from a survey administered at a
public research institution. We conclude that it is necessary for institutions — large public
research institutions, particularly – to do more to demonstrate to students the value for
interacting with faculty and to consistently support the development of relationships between
undergraduates and those who teach them.
Student-faculty interaction plays a key role in the collegiate experience. From
the perspective of many U.S. higher education administrators and faculty, office hours
represent institutional commitment to student-faculty interaction: interaction which
research roundly regards as a best practice in undergraduate education (Boyer, 1990;
Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010). Research consistently
finds that high quality student-faculty interactions are highly correlated with student
retention, persistence, and academic achievement (Kuh et al., 2010; Tinto, 1997) as well
as students’ confidence in their intellectual abilities (Cole, 2007, 2008) and their
aspirations for further study (Hurtado et al., 2011). In theory, office hours make space
for such positive student-faculty interactions.
Office hours remain an institutional policy on most U.S. campuses. Higher
education institutions in Taiwan and mainland China, for example, have also started
to implement office hours to promote student-faculty interactions and enhance
effective student learning (Hong & Hu, 2012; Hong, Hu, & Yang, 2010). But the

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 15
resource itself is useless if few students actually use it. Instructors lament lonely office
hours, and empirical research echoes their anecdotes (Fusani, 1994; Li & Pitts, 2009).
Underuse of office hours thus undermines a real and important site for the
kinds of interactions that can facilitate student success. Do students see such potential
in office hours? Do their understandings of office hours shape how they use them?
Contemporary college students have a plethora of digital spaces for making contact
with faculty. At many U.S. institutions—particularly at large research institutions—
office hours are the lone site where student-faculty interaction is consistently accessible
to all students. Do students see a reason for working with fixed times and locations
when they have options for communicating at any time?
We pursue these questions in a survey-based study that explores student
perceptions of office hours at a large U.S. research institution. We examine what these
perceptions can tell us about student-faculty interaction in the current social and
political climate of U.S. higher education.
Our study finds a mismatch between the institutional intention for office
hours and student perceptions of them, a mismatch that gives rise to an underuse of
office hours. Our results demonstrate that students are most likely to perceive office
hours as the last resort they can turn to when an academic crisis (e.g., an anticipated
failing score) is on the horizon, rather than as an institutional resource that may be
regularly used for a broader set of fruitful interactions with faculty members. To
correct this mismatch between students’ perception of office hours and institutional
intention, we argue that students need explicit guidance about what office hours are
intended to do: they need accessible models of what office hours can offer and how to
make use of this resource.
Along this line, when students and faculty have increasingly adapted to more
instantaneous communications, we also suggest that office hours as a location-fixed
practice should be reimagined. What is more important is that institutions need to
demonstrate how interactions with faculty, either face-to-face or facilitated by new
communication technologies, matter for student success. A large body of research
indicates that when institutions show students what success looks like and how to get
there, more students can succeed in college (Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Kuh et al., 2010).
We suggest here that showing students how effective interaction with faculty can pave
the way for their success is an important step forward.
Literature Review
Office hours became a standard offering in U.S. undergraduate academic life
when scholarly and political dialogues erupted about undergraduates’ intellectual and
social development and patterns of student persistence toward degrees (cf. Astin, 1984;
Boyer, 1987, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1983). The most renowned
summary of these dialogues came from Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson (1987),
who distilled the research into Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education. First among these was interaction between students and faculty:
Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important
factor in student motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students
get through rough times and keep on working. Knowing a few faculty

16 Volume 12 ● 2017
members well enhances students' intellectual commitment and encourages
them to think about their own values and future plans (p. 3).
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) insights continue to be substantiated in empirical
studies (Dika, 2012; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 2005). Institutions intend
office hours as a site for these vital interactions. Scholars found that factors that impact
student-faculty interaction include disciplinary culture (Gamson, 1967) and
pedagogical styles (Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini, Reason, & Quaye, 2010; Wilson, Woods,
& Gaff, 1974). Students’ and faculty’s identities matter greatly, too, particularly when
students seek out-of-class contact with faculty (Cole 2007; Dika, 2012; Layne, 2012).
Pascarella (1980) observed, however, that in the early days of student-faculty
interaction studies, scholars presumed that interaction between students and faculty
was good and that more would be better without establishing this empirically. The
inquiry considering how college affects students correlated student-faculty interaction,
as an independent variable, with desired outcomes of higher education including
intellectual development, persistence toward degree, and academic achievement
(Astin, 1984; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005).
Researchers and institutions have increasingly focused on evidence-based
practices shown to foster student success (Cole, 2007; Dika, 2012; Harper & Quaye,
2009; Kuh, 1991). Such research finds that student-faculty interaction is a core
component of student engagement — the degree to which institutions support their
students’ participation in educationally purposive activities (Harper & Quaye, 2009;
Kuh, 2003).
The widespread use of digital technologies has sparked scholarly interest in
examining whether they would facilitate student-faculty interaction. The results so far,
however, have been mixed. Cifuentes and Lent (2011) found that digital interaction
fosters face-to-face interactions, but Li and Pitts (2009) reached an opposite conclusion.
While benefits of student-faculty interaction outside the classroom are well-
documented, they are not always apparent to students. Cotten and Wilson (2006) find
that many students do not seek faculty interaction because they fail to recognize a need
to do so (beyond the difficulty with a course), and they suggest that faculty actively and
consistently encourage students to approach them. Freeman and Wash (2013) draw on
brain-based teaching and learning research to show that active and ongoing
encouragement reduces stress, resulting in more effective learning.
Institutions mandate office hours to reserve space and time for student-
faculty interaction. But underutilization of this resource prompts the question of how
students actually understand office hours. To examine this, we designed a survey to
explore students’ perspectives of office hours. Specifically, we asked students how
they understood office hours and what potential benefits and drawbacks they
associated with office hours. We interpreted our data against the context that
institutions and faculty both intend and assume office hours to be a resource.

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 17
Method
The authors designed a survey to capture students’ perceptions of factors
influencing their use of office hours. Data were collected from undergraduate students
(18 years of age and older) at a large, mid-Atlantic public research university in spring
2013. The survey contained 17 items, including yes/no/not applicable, multiple choice,
five-point Likert, and open-ended questions. The variables included students’
demographic information; their class standing and majors; their perceived class size;
the structure and format of the course; students’ perception of faculty’s
approachability, availability, and responsiveness; and the usefulness of the faculty’s
feedback and so on. Partially completed and non-undergraduate student responses
were removed from the data set. Of 625 valid responses, only one-third described
using office hours at least once per semester; two-thirds self-reported as never using
office hours. Students’ self-reported class standings were well-distributed: 18 percent
freshman, 26 percent sophomore, 29 percent junior, and 27 percent senior.
Respondents’ self-reported racial identities are representative of the undergraduate
student body of the university—66 percent White, 11 percent African American, 15
percent Asian American, and 7 percent Hispanic.
Our quantitative analysis showed that factors commonly believed to be
important for the use of office hours, like instructor approachability or that students
are commuting or working full-time, did not matter for students’ self-reported use of
office hours (Griffin et al., 2014). This study presents the qualitative analysis from 724
comments in response to two open-ended questions: 1) What would make you more likely
to use office hours? and 2) Please share any additional comments. Our goal is to better
understand what prevents students from utilizing office hours and how to motivate
them to use office hours more often. In order to develop a valid coding scheme for
these data, a set of 100 randomly selected responses were openly coded by three
authors to identify salient themes. A series of codes were created, expanded, defined,
and refined to describe those common themes. When a decision needed to be made
regarding assigning one general code or two or more specific sub-codes, coders agreed
to preserve as much details as possible. Using this agreed-upon codebook, five authors
thematically coded all responses.1
Results
1. How do we use Office Hours?
Faced with the question, “What would make you more likely to use office
hours?” undergraduates most frequently responded (N = 415, 57%) with variations on
an appeal of their own: How would I use office hours? How should I use office hours? I
don’t really know what office hours are for. Or, as one response candidly put it: “Office
hours are kind of weird.” There are two distinct but related frustrations expressed in
this category of responses: first, the claim of a lack of knowledge about the purpose of
1 Inter-rater reliability for this coding scheme was .97. In statistical analysis, inter-rater
reliability is a measurement of the agreement among different raters.

18 Volume 12 ● 2017
office hours; second, a recognition that office hours may have some potential as a
resource, but a potential that the respondent is uncertain of how to capitalize.
Invoking uncertainty about the purpose of office hours may be a way of
justifying non-attendance. Uncertainty may also prevent the student from imagining
a single possible situation in which s/he would use office hours in the future. For
instance, one student writes: “Having something to go to office hours for? I have no
idea what I would go to office hours for.” The vague term “something” is used to
substitute all possible activities which could have occurred during office hours,
including assignment-oriented consultation and general interactions with the faculty
member. Ending the sentence with a question mark also shows the student’s
uncertainty about using office hours even when s/he may have “something” in mind.
Similar concerns about having no purposes of going also manifest in other students’
requests for instructors to “[take] time to say what kinds of things people go to office
hours for” and explain “why office hours will help me.”
Different from those who have scant knowledge of why faculty offer office
hours, many other students in our study recognize office hours as a potential academic
resource, but they express their struggle with how to take advantage of this resource.
Typical responses are:
Student A: “If I didn’t feel like I had to go only when I couldn’t find the answer
to my questions on my own.”
Student B: “If I had questions that did not have simple answers which could
be communicated over email.”
Student C: “I feel that any questions I have can be answered through email.”
Student D: “I don't go to office hours because I ask questions in class when I
do not understand things. [Any] class where questions cannot be asked in
class usually has a discussion section where I can ask question. I can also look
in the textbook or search the internet for answers. I would like to have
informal discussion about related material with my professors but never
know how to start the conversation so I don't try.”
These students do see a purpose for office hours. They perceive office hours
as occasions to raise specific questions. If they can find answers by themselves or
through other means, such as email communication, discussion section, textbook, or
via the internet, they choose not to visit faculty. Their perceptions of office hours as no
more than Q & A sessions outside classroom limit their ability to think of how else
office hours can be used. According to this narrow understanding of office hours,
students are supposed to bring questions to office hours. They feel discouraged to attend
office hours if they do not have specific questions or if they wish to do things other
than asking questions.
Students’ difficulties to conceive a scenario of utilizing office hours and their
vague and limited understanding of what they can do with office hours reveal a gap
between institutional design and students’ perceptions of office hours. The types of

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 19
student-faculty interactions that foster desired outcomes of higher education both
encompass and extend beyond questions about specific course material; they may
include, for example, mentorship, discussion of a students’ future plans and career
trajectory, fostering student persistence, or, as student D suggests, discussion of related
material. If institutions provided students explicit guidance for how to think about
student-faculty interaction, and how to use office hours as an opportunity for student-
faculty interaction, student D, for one, might be willing to “try” to start the
conversation with the professor. And students who say “I just don’t always know what
questions to ask at office hours” would probably not be deterred from visiting faculty.
Not knowing how to make use of office hours may also lead students to
consider office hours as a last resort in the learning process, which they prefer not to
turn to unless they have tried almost everything else. Reserving office hours for special
occasions—occasions often framed as “emergencies” (N = 268, 37%)—is another salient
symptom of the mismatch between students’ perceptions and institutional design of
office hours.
1.1 Emergency. Responses coded as ‘office hours are for emergencies’ were
characterized by the inclusion of stress words (e.g., crisis, struggle, difficulty, fail, etc.)
and/or descriptions of a desperate situation, conveying a sense of urgency surrounding
a situation (or possible situation) that was specific and circumstantial. These responses
are distinct in their urgent tone and directed purpose as compared to a more
speculative, general statement such as “if I needed more help in the class.” For
instance:
Student E: “I have not reached any serious crises for this course so
personally, I have not felt the need for office hours, especially since we meet
5 times a week. Out of those 5 days two of those days is discussion, where I
feel like if I have questions, I can ask at that time. My lack of participation in
office hours may also be because [the professor] explains things pretty well
and [the TA] can clear up anything minor concepts I don't understand.”
Student F: “If I was completely lost in all the concepts covered in lecture
and/or discussion/lab.”
Student G: “If I was doing very, very, very bad in the class and there was no
way for me to improve. Or if I needed to get grade changes on any previous
exams. Most likely, though, never really going to use office hours.”
Students see these emergency situations as a compelling reason to attend
office hours and provide a distinct answer to the question “how can we use office hours
as a resource?” Yet the majority of these comments indicate the emergency situation
as the exclusive reason that the student would attend office hours and, even then, the
situation must be dire to compel the student to attend. These students perceive office
hours as fulfilling only a single purpose, that of addressing emergency situations,
instead of multi-purpose. While these emergency situations could lead to increased
student-faculty interaction, the student perceptions of how office hours can be utilized

20 Volume 12 ● 2017
presented here are woefully narrow in scope when compared to the institutional
intention of fostering student-faculty interaction.
For other students, even an emergency situation is not sufficient impetus to
utilize office hours. This student, for example, is failing the course but indicates that
office hours are not worth his/her effort unless other incentives (extra credit) are given:
Student H: “I know professors would not want to do this, but sometimes
students don't want to help themselves and they might need an incentive to
go to office hours. If there was like a 1-5 point (almost insignificant) extra
credit given when attending office hours it might help. Currently I am failing
organic chemistry, and I have never seen the professor outside of the lectures,
nor do I plan on it. If there were extra credit points involved I would probably
force myself to visit him, then it might just break the ice and I could get into
the habit of doing it.”
The emphasis on offering “extra credit” for the office hour visit reflects this
student’s misconception of the office hour not as a regular campus resource that s/he
can utilize to reverse the tendency of failing the course and get help from the professor
directly2 but, instead, as a place where an icebreaker is needed and the “habit” of
regular use requires extra impetus to build. Like students E, F, and G, the student
seems to acknowledge office hours as a resource for receiving help from the instructor
for course-related problems, but even ‘emergency’ status does not appear to convince
student H that office hours are worth his/her effort.
2. “I can just Email,” or (Physical) Office Hours are not Worth the Effort
The notion that paying a visit to faculty’s office hours is "not worth the effort,"
is a second major theme that emerged from our analysis. This theme is the result of
several codes on office hour push and pull factors, including perceptions of
inconvenience surrounding office hour time and location (N = 225, 31%), a preference
for virtual over in-person communication (N = 41), and a troubling desire to be wooed
to office hours by "treats" (N = 26).
The theme of "not worth the effort" is based on two codes surrounding
opinions of convenience. Students indicate enhanced convenience through virtual
communication, as well as inconvenience based on times and locations of in-person
office hours. Many students report that in-person interaction through office hours is a
last resort, and they would only attend if instructors were not responsive through
email. A quantitative analyses found the vast majority of students (94%) reported that
instructors were "responsive" (as opposed to "not responsive" or "not available") via
email (Griffin et al., 2014). Therefore, students can rely on email as a consistent
communication mechanism. Our data additionally show that students questioned the
necessity of in-person office hours, based on the perception that virtual communication
2 Authors thank the anonymous reviewer for bringing up this point.

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 21
is more convenient for all parties involved. For example, in response to the question,
"What would make you more likely to use office hours?", a student answers:
Student I: “I haven't needed them. The professor has been easily available
over the phone or email. Which is easier for everyone. So, nothing, I guess.”
Like this student, many assume that email is the preferred mode of
communication both for themselves and their professors (Thirty-three students
answered similarly in response to the question “What would make you more likely to
use office hours?”). The perception that email is a more convenient, and therefore
preferred, method of communication testifies to broader transformations digital
technologies have brought to social interactions in general. As the Millennials
constitute a majority of the college student body, the
strict rule of physical attendance for office hours seem
to run counter to the norms students have for social
interactions. A study done by Pew Research Center in
2012 showed that 96% of those ages 18-29 are internet
users, 84% use social networking sites, and 97% have cell phones (Anderson & Rainie,
2012). The social environment in which Millennials grow up makes them the earliest
and quickest adopters of connected technologies and always-on lifestyle. Some
scholars are deeply worried about current younger generation’s immersion into
asynchronous communications such as emails and messages, and their corresponding
flight away from real time conversations (Turkle, 2011). However, Turkle’s tendency
to give privileges to in-person, real time conversation may fall into the fallacy of seeing
the digital world and real world as discrete when they are actually increasingly
interconnected (Jurgenson, 2011).
It is not our intention to draw broad generalizations about the impact of
digital technologies on student-faculty interaction. However, the historical practice of
office hours—come-and-visit in person—is dated. It is made obsolete by the
pervasiveness of more convenient and instantaneous ways of communication. While
the definition needs to be updated to incorporate more diverse ways of contacting
faculty, we do not argue for a dismissal of office hours altogether. On the contrary, it
is necessary to reinforce the core value embodied by the original design of office hours,
namely, to enhance student-faculty interactions. To implement office hours in a more
connected world, we suggest that the emphasis should be put on enhancing student-
faculty interactions regardless of means, either in-person consultation or brief
communications via digital tools. How to maintain quality student-faculty interaction
in this increasingly connected world is a challenge facing faculty and institutions.
Understanding of office hours as physical visits has led many students to
complain about time and location inconvenience for scheduling a visit. That is our
third code under "not worth the effort”. Email is understood as the most convenient
and preferred communication mechanism; the effort of going in-person to office hours
is not. For example, a student who is dissatisfied with his/her instructor's
responsiveness to email reports:
…the historical practice of
office hours—come-and
-
visit in person—is dated.

22 Volume 12 ● 2017
Student J: “I wish more professors were responsive via e-mail. Office hours
are not always a viable communication method at all times.”
Inconvenience surrounding office hour time and location is the most
frequently appearing (N = 225) subcode in analysis. Students largely interpret the times
and locations at which office hours are held as inconvenient, and in some cases express
this interpretation with resentment. Some students make specific time and location
requests, while others generally suggest additional or extended times and different
locations. For example, when asked what would make him/her more likely to attend
office hours, a student generally suggests:
Student K: “Maybe if office hours were not during times that I have class, if I
lived closer, or if I did not have to work full time.”
In some cases, a tone of resentment underlies perceptions of office hour
inconvenience. For example, in response to what would make him/her more likely to
attend office hours a student reports:
Student L: “If I had more time in the day to spend going out of my way to do
this. I also am usually able to figure things out by myself with a little bit of
practice.”
[emphasis added]
A second student describes his/her attempts at interaction through office
hours, but expresses frustration and resentment. The student ultimately determines
that attending office hours is simply not worth the effort:
Student M: “My professor is always bombarded by students all day. She is
hardly available because she forces us to think in an applied way, causing a
bottleneck of people not understanding the material. I would much rather
spend my time figuring it out on my own than going to speak with the
professor because the wait time is so long.”
The resentment surrounding perceived inconvenience of office hours
suggests that more than a few students see a physical visit to office hours impeding
rather than fostering student-faculty interaction.
3. Approachability
While for some students resentment about the perceived inconvenience of
office hours diminishes office hour use, others view office hours as impeding student-
faculty interactions due to interpersonal factors and instructor approachability.
Scholars have not reached a consensus regarding the role played by faculty’s
approachability in fostering student-faculty interaction. Some quantitative analyses
showed that instructor approachability was not a significant factor (Griffin et al., 2014).
Bippus, Kearney, Plax, and Brooks (2003) reported that perceptions of instructor out-
of-class approachability derived from observations of in-class behaviors are less
influential than those instructors’ specific invitations to engage in out-of-class

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 23
communication. Our study had a total of 135 responses related to instructor
approachability derived from two codes: “expectations” and “interpersonal.” In
considering that some students may share the above quoted perception that office
hours impede student-faculty interaction, we included the expression of awkwardness
or judgment for being unprepared or incompetent in anticipation of office hour visits
into the category of “expectations”; characteristics of the faculty (i.e., approachability,
friendliness or unfriendliness, and attitude) fall into the category of “interpersonal.”
Within the code “I like office hours,” five responses fall into
the theme of approachability; unfortunately, this represents
a minority within the set of students who chose to comment
on the theme of approachability.
We find that instructors’ lack of encouragement (or
even active discouragement) of office hour visits prevents
students from taking advantage of interacting with faculty; this is even more so the
case for the students who may draw comparison to other instructors who offer
invitation, or at least are neutral about office hours visits. For instance, answering
“what would make you more likely to attend office hours?”:
Student N: “If the professor didn’t say to me when I approached him ‘I don’t
have time to help you. You can’t just come to me with questions that take a
long time to explain. That’s considered private tutoring’. I use all of my other
teachers’ office hours but this professor has specifically shut me down.”
Student O: “Office hours are dependent solely on the approachability of the
professor. Some professors make you feel like a burden for coming to office
hours and interrupting their work. Or they make you feel stupid for asking
some questions or being concerned with your grade.”
Another student did not express such dissatisfaction toward the instructor’s
condescending attitude but found “seeing a professor alone to introduce ideas and
express concerns can be very intimidating” and believed he/she needed “more
personal confidence.” These students decided not to use the resource of office hours
because they assumed that they were “burden” to the instructor and their visits were
“interrupting” instructor’s work.
On the other hand, among five total responses where students expressed
willingness to visit the instructor or satisfaction with their office hours experience, they
mentioned “being comfortable” in office hours and that the instructor “has been really
amazing and has tried to actively engage the class.” In these cases, instructor
approachability had a positive effect on office hour attendance.
Cox et al. (2010) asserted that inherent instructor characteristics, such as the
tone of voice, accents, and facial appearance, play a greater role in student perceptions
of approachability than pedagogical methods or style. Limits to instructor
approachability that stem primarily from perceptions of being condescending, rude, or
a know-it-all are likely more correlated to demeanor and behavior than pedagogical
methods. Polite attitudes and friendly gestures are changeable attributes for the
instructor as compared to such inherent characteristics as race and gender. Along this
“Office hours are
dependent solely on
th
e approachability
of the professor…”

24 Volume 12 ● 2017
line, we would argue that efforts on the part of individual instructors and institutions
are imperative to foster nurturing and encouraging environments for students,
particularly when it comes to one-on-one interactions in office hours. Institutional
environments play an important role in their “inhabitants” demeanor (Hallett, 2007).
Universities can work to ensure support for instructors by recognizing the value of
sound student-faculty interaction and promoting a friendly and nurturing teaching
environment.
Conclusions
Two qualifications should be specified before we make our recommendations.
First, we ought to acknowledge that faculty and students may have different
evaluations of office hours to begin with. Faculty may give more credit to office hour
visits than students because students seeking a career in academia may be more
interested in school and interacting with faculty than those who choose non-academic
careers. Along this line, how faculty relate to students regarding office hour visits is a
critical topic for faculty as well as higher education institutions to consider. Secondly,
our study addresses a contemporary under-utilization of office hours. Indeed, because
of the absence of the longitudinal data on how students on our campus use office hours
historically, there is no knowing if a two-thirds non-use rate is normal or not. Our
study has revealed students’ willingness to use office hours yet, at the same time,
revealed a certain degree of frustration because they do not know how to make the
most of the office hour.
Given the mismatch between institutional intentions for office hours — as a
platform for highly valued student-faculty interactions — and student perceptions of
them, we call for more guidance for the students explaining why interaction with
faculty during office hours is useful and how to realize it. We also suggest that the
concept and practice of office hours need to be brought more up-to-date by embracing
diverse means of student-faculty communications.
Nonetheless, students, whether they are interested in interacting with faculty
out of class or not, can benefit greatly from active and consistent interaction with faculty
(Cotten & Wilson, 2006). Office hours are a great channel to achieve this student-
faculty engagement. Educational institutions outside North America, including those
in Taiwan and mainland China, have started to see the value of robust student-faculty
interactions afforded by office hours. These places where office hours were not placed
in the higher education system are beginning to institutionalize the resource (Hong &
Hu, 2012). We recommend that faculty and higher education institutions take the
following concrete steps to encourage students to utilize office hours as a resource:
x In order to address students’ question “How should I use office hours?”,
faculty and higher education institutions need to make it explicit what
students might get out of office hours, and especially as it relates to use
beyond assignment-oriented questions. This may include, for example,
informal conversations about the broader field of study, consulting
faculty with career advice, seeking recommendation letters for jobs and
further education, helping students develop persistence, discussion of
research opportunities, and other forms of productive and purposeful

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 25
student-faculty interactions. Higher education institutions need to help
students understand the benefits and value of interacting with faculty,
not only for their subject-specific knowledge and degree completion but
also for their long-term fulfillment and even success after graduation.
Institutions can provide fresh college students detailed guidance on how
to use office hours to interact with faculty, and highlight narratives of
high-quality interactions that have emerged from office hour use.
Knowledge of the value of office hours would serve to mitigate student
perceptions that office hours are “not worth the effort” or are “for
emergencies only”.
x Administrators also need to create nurturing classroom environments by
promoting friendly and dedicated attitudes toward teaching among
faculty. Universities should support the time that students and faculty
spend together such that students’ perceptions of instructor
approachability ultimately serve to promote rather than deter office hour
use.
x Instructors should openly and proactively promote office hours in class.
As most of the college courses now have a webpage on the university
course management platform, instructors may consider placing their
availability in a prominent place on the course page. Instructors can also
repeatedly remind students verbally of their availability and extend
invitations to visit office hours. Doing these things, in addition to the
standard practice of putting office hours on the syllabus and mentioning
it once or twice throughout the semester, can send an encouraging
message to students about instructor approachability and availability
during office hours.
x Both higher education institutions and instructors need to update their
notion of office hour visits and embrace new digital technologies for
teaching and learning to facilitate student-faculty interaction. The
increase of more interactive communication tools may have made the
idea of office hours as pure face-to-face interactions obsolete for students,
a challenge that may be best addressed by extending the notion of office
hours to include virtual interactions between faculty and students.
Because the primary benefit of office hours comes not from a student’s
physical presence in the faculty member’s office, but rather from the time
and space that office hours create for constructive student-faculty
engagement, digital platforms (e.g. chat rooms, video chat, online
whiteboards, social media, etc.) may be used to retain that ‘time and
space’ while ameliorating student perceptions that office hours occur in
inconvenient locations. Furthermore, an instructor’s efforts to embrace
the communication technologies familiar to students are gestures which
welcome students to engage with faculty outside the classroom. This is
by no means to suggest that digital technologies are the silver bullet.
Ultimately, no single tactical approach can address all students and,
therefore, digital technologies should be seen as one tool rather than a
stand-alone solution in addressing under-use of office hours.

26 Volume 12 ● 2017
Creating an opportunity for student-faculty interaction alone does not
guarantee its use, by either students or faculty (Cox et al., 2010). Our current study
focuses on perceptions of office hours from students’ points of view. But faculty
perceptions of office hours are just as crucial for learning more about what it takes to
engage students in high quality interaction with faculty. One possible study would be
finding out successful techniques from faculty who have attracted and motivated more
students to visit their office hours.
Future studies may investigate more rigorously how faculty perceptions
shape students’ office hour use and what we can learn from student’s positive
experience of office hour visit. How new technologies impact the notion and practice
of office hours will be another direction for future studies.
References
Anderson, J., & Lee, R. (2012, February
29).
Main findings: Teens, technology, and
human potential in 2020
. Retrieved from
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science &
Tech website:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/29/
main-findings-teens-technology-and-
human-potential-in-2020/
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement:
A developmental theory for higher
education.
Journal of College Student
Personnel, 25, 297-
308. Retrieved from
http://www.myacpa.org/journal-college
-
student-development
Bippus, A. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., &
Brooks, C. F. (2003). Teacher access and
mentoring abilities: Predicting the
outcome v
alue of extra class
communication.
Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 31, 260–
275. doi:
10.1080/00909880305379
Boyer, E. L. (1987).
College: The
undergraduate experience in America.
Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation
Boyer, E. L. (1990).
Scholarship reconsidered:
Priorities of the professoriate
. Lawrenceville,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987).
Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education.
AAHE bulletin,
3
, 7. Retrieved from
http://www.aahea.org/index.php/aahea
-
bulletin
Cifuentes, O. E., & Lents, N. H. (2011).
Increasing student-
teacher interactions at
an urban commuter campus through
instant messaging and online office hours.
Electronic Journal of Science Education,
14(1). Retriev
ed from
http://ejse.southwestern.edu/
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions
matter? An examination of student-
faculty contact and intellectual self-
concept.
The Journal of Higher Education,
78(3), 249–281. doi:
10.1353/jhe.2007.0015
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive criticism:
The role of student-
faculty interactions on
African American and Hispanic students’
educational gains.
Journal of College
Student Development, 49, 587–
605. doi:
10.1353/csd.0.0040

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 27
Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student–
faculty interactions: Dynamics and
determinants. Higher Education, 51
, 487–
519. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-1705-4
Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P.
T., Reason, R. D., &
Quaye, B. R. L. (2010).
Pedagogical signals of faculty
approachability: Factors shaping faculty
–
student interaction outside the classroom.
Research in Higher Education, 51, 767–
788.
doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9178-z
Dika, S. L. (2012). Relations with facult
y as
social capital for college students:
Evidence from Puerto Rico.
Journal of
College Student Development, 53, 596–
610.
doi: 10.1353/csd.2012.0051
Freeman, G. G., & Wash, P. D. (2013). You
can lead students to the classroom and
you can make them think:
Ten brain-
based strategies for college teaching and
learning success.
Journal of Excellence in
College Teaching, 24(3), 99-
120. Retrieved
from http://celt.miamioh.edu/ject/
Fusani, D. S. (1994). “Extra-
class”
communication: Frequency, immediacy,
self-
disclosure, and satisfaction in
student-
faculty interaction outside the
classroom.
Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 22(3), 232–
255.
doi:10.1080/00909889409365400
Gamson, Z. F. (1967). Performance and
personalism in student-
faculty relations.
Sociology of Education, 40, 279-
301. doi:
10.2307/2111937
Griffin, W., Cohen, S. D., Berndtson, R.,
Burson, K., Camper, M., Chen, Y., &
Smith, M. A. (2014). Starting the
conversation: An exploratory study of
factors that influence student office hour
use. College Teaching, 62(3), 94–
99. doi:
10.1080/87567555.2014.896777
Hallett, Tim. 2007. "Between Deference
and Distinction: Interaction Ritual
through Symbolic Power in an
Educational Environment."
Social
Psychology Quarterly, 70(2): 148-171.
Hong, E., &
Hu, T. (2012). A case study of
solutions to problems in practicing office
hours system in mainland universities of
China.
Journal of Ningbo University
(Educational Science Edition), 34(5), 59–
63.
Retrieved from
http://www.oriprobe.com/journals/nbdx
xb-lg.html
Hong, E., Hu, T., & Yang, G. (2010). The
practice of office hour system in
Taiwanese universities and its
enlightenment.
Journal of Fujian Normal
University (Philosophy and Social Sciences
Edition), 4, 51–
55, 75. Retrieved from
http://www.oriprobe.com
/journals/fjsfdx
xb-zx.html
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C.,
Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco,
P. (2011).
“We do science here”:
Underrepresented students’ interactions
with faculty in different college contexts.
Journal of Social Issues, 67, 553–
579. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01714.x
Jurgenson, N. (2011, February 24). Digital
dualism versus augmented reality.
Retrieved from Cyborgology website:
https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/
Kuh, G. D. (1991).
Involving colleges:
Successful
approaches to fostering student
learning and development outside the
classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

28 Volume 12 ● 2017
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning
about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for eff
ective educational
practices. Change: The Magazin
e of Higher
Learning, 35(2), 24–
32. doi:
10.1080/00091380309604090
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of
student-
faculty interaction in the 1990s.
The Review of Higher Education, 24
, 309–
332. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2001.0005
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., &
Whitt, E. J. (2010).
Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter
. United
States: John Wiley & Sons.
Layne, L. (2012). Defining effective
teaching.
Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 23(1), 43–
68. Retrieved from
http://celt.miamioh.edu/ject/
Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really
matter? Using virtual office hours to
enhance student-
faculty interaction.
Journal of Information Systems Education,
20(2), 175–
185. Retrieved from
http://jise.org/
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-
faculty
informal contact and college outcomes.
Review of Educational Research, 50, 545–
595.
doi: 10.3102/00346543050004545
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005).
How college affects students: A
third
decade of research (Vol.
2). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-
Bass Higher & Adult
Education, A Wiley Imprint.
Tinto, V. (1993).
Leaving college: Rethinking
the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). C
lassrooms as
communities: Exploring the educational
character of student persistence.
Journal of
Higher Education, 68, 599–
623. doi:
10.2307/2959965
Turkle, S. (2011).
Alone together: Why we
expect more from technology and less from
each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R.
(2005). Faculty
do matter: The role of
college faculty in student learning and
engagement.
Research in Higher Education,
46, 153–184. doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-
1598-
1
Wilson, R. C., Woods, L., & Gaff, J.
G.
(1974). Social-
psychological accessibility
and faculty-
student interaction beyond
the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47
(1),
74–92. doi: 10.2307/2112167

InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 29
Margaret Smith has a PhD in sociology from the University of Maryland, College Park. She is
currently the managing editor for Contexts, a quarterly magazine that makes cutting-edge
social research accessible to general readers and a publication of American Sociological
Association.
Yujie Chen has a PhD in American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park.
She currently works as a post-doctoral fellow at the School of Journalism and Communication
in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is specialized in studying social and cultural
implication of the information and communication technologies.
Rachel Berndtson has a PhD in geographical sciences from the University of Maryland, College
Park. She is now the Assistant Director of Academic Programs of the Department of
Geographical Sciences in the University of Maryland, College Park. She is deeply interested in
pedagogies and teaching practice.
Kristen M. Burson has a PhD in Physics from the University of Maryland, College Park. She
used to work as visiting assistant professor at the Gettysburg College and a postdoctoral fellow
at the Fritz-Haber Institute of the Max Plank Society in Germany. Her research interest
includes science teaching and learning.
After spending a year in the industry, Dr. Whitney Griffin returns to the University to pursue
a career in academia. She has a PhD in plant science and currently teaching at the Department
of Horticultural Sciences in the Texas A&M University.