Teaching in higher education involves far more than delivering content. It means cultivating an inclusive and participatory environment where students feel seen, valued, and empowered to learn. Effective pedagogy not only presents material that fosters intellectual and personal growth, but it also equips students with the skills to navigate their academic and professional paths with confidence. Furthermore, teaching should aim to prepare students for active civic engagement. However, the classroom is not immune to the challenges of the wider world. Increasingly, instructors report difficulty maintaining students’ attention, citing ever-present distractions like smartphones, laptops, and a relentless stream of digital notifications. Yet these are not the only factors at play. Fatigue, economic precarity, mental health struggles, low motivation, and self-doubt also significantly influence students’ ability to engage with course content.
When students become disengaged—whether due to external distractions or internal struggles—teaching becomes more complex, prompting a need to reassess long-standing practices. One underutilized but powerful strategy for fostering classroom connection and motivation begins on the very first day of class. Research shows that initial class sessions are crucial for establishing trust, setting expectations, and capturing student interest (Curzan & Damour, 2000; Davis, 1993; Lucas, 2006; McKeachie, 2002) —three elements essential to maintaining engagement across the semester. This article explores a practice that has significantly enhanced student engagement and classroom dynamics in my courses: the co-creation of ground rules. Though deceptively simple in execution, this approach has consistently proven to be a meaningful and effective method for shaping collaborative and inclusive learning environments.
Setting the Tone on Day One: Their Voices Matter
For many college students, the first day of class follows a familiar script. The instructor typically arrives, distributes a syllabus outlining course policies and expectations, explains assignments and grading criteria, and may include a brief activity or icebreaker. Often, class ends early. This routine has become a kind of academic ritual, shaping what students expect from the first day. In fact, research on student preferences in psychology courses suggests that many students value this structured approach, particularly the emphasis on course requirements, expectations, and the instructor’s role (Perlman & McCann, 1999).
While this structured approach provides clarity, one must question whether it sufficiently addresses the evolving needs of today’s students. Rather than functioning solely as an orientation session, the first day should be viewed as an opportunity to initiate collaboration, spark curiosity, and foster mutual investment. A more effective approach centers student voices from the start. Rather than dictating course policies and classroom norms, instructors can instead ask: What do you think about this plan? How might we improve it together?
This pedagogical shift promotes a sense of shared responsibility. It reframes the syllabus not as a fixed legal document, but as a living agreement shaped by both instructor expertise and student input. One particularly effective way to enact this shift is through the collaborative development of classroom ground rules. By inviting students to co-create the behavioral and communicative norms that will govern the class, we empower them to take ownership of the space and contribute to a sense of collective accountability.
This practice aligns with scholarship advocating for student-centered, participatory approaches to classroom management (Brooks, 1987; Feldmann, 2001; Gonzalez & Lopez, 2001; Sorcinelli, 1994). Several higher education resources support this model as well. For example, Start Talking: A Handbook for Engaging Difficult Dialogues in Higher Education, How Learning Works, and Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms provide frameworks for fostering dialogue and setting shared expectations. Many universities also publish guides on their teaching center websites, including Vanderbilt University’s resources on managing difficult dialogues and Cornell University’s tools for creating community agreements.
The Activity: Co-Creating Ground Rules
In my upper-level Spanish language, literature, and film courses, I implement this activity on the first day. We begin with brief introductions and a walkthrough of the syllabus. I highlight the major components—course objectives, assessments, required materials, and communication methods—while emphasizing that the document is open to revision. I then distribute a handout containing a set of examples of ground rules adapted from inclusive teaching frameworks. Students read through these examples in small groups and decide which rules resonate most strongly with them. They are also encouraged to brainstorm additional norms based on their prior classroom experiences.
This phase often sparks rich, unexpected conversations. Students reflect on moments when they felt unheard, unseen, or unsupported in previous courses and articulate how they hope this class will be different. Each group then presents its proposed ground rules to the class. As the instructor, I serve as a facilitator rather than a moderator or authority figure, guiding the discussion as students collaboratively merge their ideas into a collective set of class agreements. What distinguishes my approach from similar models is its emphasis on student agency. While many scholars and institutions advocate for co-creating ground rules to foster “safe spaces” (Gorski, 2020; Stone Norton, 2008; Garibay, 2015), I take this a step further by encouraging students to see the classroom as a co-constructed space. Rather than merely agreeing to rules, students actively design them. They aren’t just adhering to an instructor’s vision—they’re shaping the culture of their learning community. This distinction is crucial. When students feel responsible for the environment they’ve helped create, they are more likely to stay engaged, support one another, and hold themselves accountable.
To help guide our first discussion on co-creating class agreements, I share some common themes that often emerge from student-generated ground rules. These examples serve as a starting point for students to consider what might be important in shaping a respectful and collaborative classroom environment:
Possible Topics for Ground Rules:
- How to communicate.
- Ways to disagree.
- Consequences for unacceptable behavior.
- Process for giving and receiving feedback.
- Process for assessing coursework.
- Cell phone use.
I also provide three summary lists based on scholars’ recommendations to offer students useful vocabulary and examples of how they might express their feelings and expectations for our class.
Adapted from Gorski’s (2020) Recommendations:
- Listen actively—respect others when they are talking.
- Speak from your own experience instead of generalizing (“I” instead of “they,” “we,” or “you”).
- Respectfully challenge ideas, not individuals—focus on discussion.
- Participate fully—community growth depends on every voice.
- Avoid invalidating others’ experiences; instead, share your own.
- The goal is not agreement but deeper understanding.
- Be mindful of body language and nonverbal responses, as they can convey disrespect.
Adapted from Stone Norton’s (2008) Recommendations (cited in Salazar et al., 2009):
- Everyone has the right to be heard.
- Be respectful while remaining critical.
- No name-calling.
- One person speaks at a time.
- Maintain confidentiality.
- Hold yourself and others to high standards.
- Recognize that no one knows everything and everyone can improve.
- Acknowledge diverse knowledge bases.
Adapted from Garibay’s (2015) Recommendations:
- Respect others’ opinions in discussions.
- Critique ideas, not people.
- Support arguments with evidence rather than generalizations.
- Avoid dominating discussions.
- Be open to new perspectives.
- If nervous about speaking, remember your perspective is valuable.
- Be mindful of nonverbal responses.
Although each group produces a slightly different list, certain core values consistently emerge: a shared desire to establish a space grounded in respect, empathy, accountability, and active participation.
Living Agreements: Revisiting the Rules
After the initial discussion, I synthesize the students’ ideas and post a draft of the ground rules on our learning management system. Students are invited to review, comment, and suggest edits online. In our next class, we finalize the agreements through a collective vote. The approved version is not static; instead, it functions as a living document. Midway through the semester, typically in March and again in April, we revisit the agreements to evaluate how well they’re serving us. This provides an opportunity to revise norms based on new insights, emerging challenges, or evolving class dynamics.
This periodic review process is particularly impactful. While some instructors use mid-semester surveys to assess classroom climate, revisiting the ground rules invites a deeper, more collective form of reflection. It allows the class to engage in a mature, collaborative conversation about what is working and what needs adjustment. More importantly, it reinforces the idea that the classroom belongs to all of us—not just the instructor.
Observations and Outcomes
In my classrooms, the time I invest in co-creating ground rules with students has consistently led to deeper engagement and a noticeable shift in classroom dynamics. One of the most immediate outcomes is the change in how students perceive their role in the learning process. Rather than seeing expectations as rigid rules handed down by me, they come to understand that they have a voice in shaping the classroom environment. This realization fosters a sense of ownership and agency, which in turn leads to greater participation and accountability throughout the semester.
An unexpected but powerful outcome has been the way this process accelerates students’ comfort with one another. Typically, the first few weeks of a course involve tentative participation as students navigate new social dynamics. But by beginning with a collaborative conversation about how we want to learn together, students engage in meaningful dialogue from day one. They express their expectations, negotiate shared norms, and begin forming connections early on—lowering social barriers and building a sense of community that supports a much more interactive class environment from the outset.
I also value the opportunity to revisit these shared agreements mid-semester. This check-in gives me timely insight into how students are experiencing the course, allowing me to make thoughtful adjustments while there’s still time to have an impact. It also reinforces the idea that our classroom is a dynamic space—one we are all responsible for shaping and improving together.
In the end, the time I dedicate to this process at the start of the semester pays off in lasting ways. It helps create a more inclusive, reflective, and connected learning environment—one where students feel seen, heard, and invested from the very beginning.
Angela Rodriguez Mooney, PhD, is an assistant professor of Spanish and the Texas Women’s University.
References
Barkley, E. F. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Bayer, A. (2004). Promulgating statements of student rights and responsibilities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(99), 77–87.
Brooks, D. (1987). Ground rules for discussion. Journal of Higher Education, 58(3), 305–312.
Curzan, A., & Damour, L. (2000). First day to final grade: A graduate student’s guide to teaching. University of Michigan Press.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Feldmann, L. (2001). Reflections on classroom discussions and teaching strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 169–187.
Garibay, J. C. (2015). Creating community in the classroom: Setting norms for respectful dialogue and learning. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(4), 213–226.
Gonzalez, A., & Lopez, E. (2001). Creating safe spaces for difficult dialogues: Classroom ground rules and norms. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 3(5), 47–58.
Gorski, P. C. (2020). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the achievement gap. Teachers College Press.
Gorski, Paul. Avoiding Racial Equity Detours. EdChange. www.edchange.org/publications/Avoiding-Racial-Equity-Detours-Gorski.pdf
Lucas, S. G. (2006). The first day of class and the rest of the semester. In W. Buskist & S. F. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 41–45). Blackwell.
McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, 11th ed. Houghton-Mifflin.
Norton, A. S. (2008). Ground rules for effective discussion. In L. Salazar, M. Garcia, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Teaching for democracy: Building consensus in the classroom (pp. 91–104). Columbia University Press.
Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (1999). Student perspectives on the first day of class. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 277–279.
Salazar, M. D., Norton, A. S., & Tuitt, F. A. (2009). Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom. In L. B. Nilson & J. E. Miller (Eds.), To improve the academy (pp. 208–226). Jossey-Bass.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Creating collaborative and inclusive learning environments: Insights for instructors. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(58), 55–63.