Stump the Professor: a classroom game to model metacognition and normalize mistakes in biology education

ABSTRACT

Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key elements under the self-determination theory (SDT) for student motivation in learning. Stump the Professor (STP) is a low-prep activity designed to model metacognition, normalize the experience of being incorrect, and encourage student participation in undergraduate biology classrooms. By empowering students to generate their own questions, STP promotes autonomy and gives students agency to shape classroom dialog. Observing the instructor verbally reason through uncertainty highlights strategies of problem-solving which model metacognition and competence. Normalizing mistakes within a supportive, low-stakes environment fosters relatedness as students perceive the classroom as a collaborative and psychologically safe place. In this article, we outline how to run this activity to establish an environment conducive to promote student learning and engagement. Our STP-focused post-activity survey results suggest that this activity reduces anxiety, increases comfort with being wrong, and enhances student engagement, supporting all three components of SDT.

INTRODUCTION

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that student motivation is sustained when autonomy, relatedness, and competence are supported (1). SDT-based interventions have been shown to improve intrinsic motivation through development of autonomy (2), establishing relatedness, and building competence. Autonomy, relatedness, and competence are further supported through teacher behaviors that include participation, structured guidance, and clarification (3), particularly when students are encouraged to engage in meaningful, interest-driven activities. Establishing a conducive classroom climate and strong teacher-student relationships enhances perceived learning outcomes (4), while strategies that amplify student voice and offer genuine choice further support motivation by acknowledging and valuing learners’ perspectives (5). SDT interventions in undergraduate populations suggest that approaches emphasizing active learning, relevance, and purpose can enhance students’ autonomous motivation, competence, and engagement (6–8). We propose that student-led questioning can foster autonomy and competence among undergraduate learners in life sciences (9), while instructor metacognition modeling may encourage relatedness and competence by creating a safe and engaging space to brainstorm ideas, embrace mistakes, and build resilience as part of the learning process. To explore this, we developed a classroom activity called Stump the Professor (STP), where biology students generate challenging questions on topics of their choosing in an effort to “stump” the professor (Fig. 1).

Fig 1.

This conceptual figure illustrates how SDT frames the STP classroom activity by supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In the top half, a group of students represents the preparation phase: autonomy, light gray; relatedness, dark gray; and competence, white. In the bottom half, the “Professor” (instructor) attempts to answer the student-generated question, modeling autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The downward arrow reflects reduced anxiety, and the upward arrow reflects increased learning, which are core outcomes of the STP experience.

PROCEDURE

Preparation

During the first week of class in Fall 2024 and Spring 2025, students (n = 84) enrolled in five different sections of introductory biology and microbiology courses at St. John Fisher University (a small liberal arts college) participated in a structured activity called “Stump the Professor.” Students were divided into groups of three to five members and provided with a worksheet to guide the development of one to two questions intended to challenge the instructor’s knowledge. Students were free to select any topic of interest, not necessarily related to biology or microbiology, and were encouraged to choose a topic they suspected the instructor might not be familiar with (Appendix 1). In one later section playing the game, students were allowed the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for brainstorming questions and developed questions to stump peers as well.

Each worksheet included space for brainstorming a correct answer, a partially correct answer, and an incorrect answer (Appendix 2). Students were prompted to anticipate common misconceptions and provide brief explanations for the rationale behind each response option. Each group then chose one question they then used to STP. The collection of post-activity survey data was approved by the St. John Fisher University IRB committee (approval number: 4828-091924-06).This survey was purpose-built to assess student perceptions of the STP activity rather than to function as a standardized SDT instrument, ensuring alignment with our learning objectives while limiting comparability to validated scales.

Execution

Each group took turns to pose their question to the instructor in front of the class. The instructor was expected to respond authentically, modeling strategies for reasoning through unfamiliar content. Responses typically included the following: admitting a lack of knowledge, drawing connections to prior knowledge, attempting an educated guess, or requesting the multiple-choice options and reasoning through them aloud. Following the instructor’s attempt, students were encouraged to provide the correct answer and explain if the instructor’s response was incorrect. The duration to complete the activity is estimated to be 15–30 min depending on group size and number of stumping rounds (Appendix 1).

Hints and caveats

• Time and group management are common challenges; smaller classes (<20) and longer brainstorming periods improve question quality. Difficulty in question/answer formation may be overcome with instructor demonstration.

• Instructors were rarely stumped, which modeled reasoning but sometimes weakened the goal of normalizing error.

• Because students were asked to avoid topics familiar to the instructor, such as course material, the connection to biology content was sometimes limited. A short post-activity reflection can help reinforce relevance.

• A limitation of this study is that our survey was custom designed for this activity; future work may incorporate validated SDT measures for cross-study comparability.

CONCLUSION

STP is a low-prep, high-impact activity that fosters metacognitive awareness and normalizes mistakes, empowering students to take intellectual risks and engage more fully in their own learning process. Post-activity surveys (Appendix 3) assessed its impact on student comfort, critical thinking, and classroom climate. Students reported that observing the instructor work through uncertainty helped them tackle tough questions (67%, P > 0.001), and 93% affirmed the value of being wrong (Fig. 2) (Appendix 4). Over three-quarters reported gains in critical thinking and growth mindset (Fig. 2A), which are outcomes linked to student choice, framing, and the ability to reason through uncertainty (10). These features directly satisfy the autonomy component of the SDT, where students are empowered to act in alignment with their own academic interests (1).

Fig 2.

Bar chart showing (A) effectiveness of STP and stacked bar chart showing (B) perception toward STP. Survey responses suggest that STP was highly effective^# in terms of helping students learn how to approach difficult problems by observing the professor think through difficult questions (67%) and engaging students (71%), though ratings for improving critical thinking (34%) and changing perceptions about mistakes (35%) were more often in the “somewhat effective” range than in the “highly effective” range. Perception toward STP was largely positive with the majority of students responding “Yes” to various questions. ^#Effectiveness was determined from a scale of 0–10 and then categorized as highly effective (>7), somewhat effective (5–7), and ineffective (≤4). Bars indicate standard error. *P-value < 0.05.

Comfort gains were especially striking: 90% of students felt the classroom became more supportive, 86% reported reduced anxiety around being wrong or asking questions, and 71% found the activity engaging (P > 0.001) (Fig. 2B). Most students reported a positive shift in their attitudes toward the value of being wrong (93%) and their perception of making mistakes (77%) (Fig. 2). These effects may strengthen with repeated iterations of the activity. Responses to four open-ended questions (n ≈ 240 responses) reinforced the quantitative results, describing the activity as "fun" and "helpful" and highlighting reduced anxiety, reframed mistakes, and increased confidence. Students valued witnessing expert reasoning, felt less anxious, reframed mistakes, adopted new learning strategies, and described the activity as engaging. Students frequently pointed to specific strategies the instructor used when confronting challenging questions, thus demonstrating metacognitive techniques and making the reasoning process visible (Appendix 5, Supplemental Table 1). These findings align with SDT’s core needs: autonomy (freedom to generate questions), relatedness (a supportive climate for making mistakes), and competence (exposure to expert reasoning and metacognition and ability to correct the professor). Collectively, they show how STP supports resilience and engagement.

Feedback suggests that STP was most effective when framed as an authentic demonstration of expert reasoning rather than as a polished performance. By modeling vulnerability and metacognitive strategies (11, 12), the activity helped students reframe mistakes as valuable learning opportunities and offered a replicable metacognitive model. As one student reflected, “It was really nice to see how he thinks,” underscoring that the perceived value lay in observing the reasoning process rather than simply the correctness of the answer. Gains in psychological safety, reduced anxiety, and strategic thinking suggest a shift toward more resilient and engaged learning behaviors (relatedness and competence) (13, 14). While these findings are preliminary, they highlight the value of modeling metacognition and suggest that the way the activity is introduced and framed may play an important role in shaping student outcomes. Further, while the intent of this activity is to challenge perceptions that professors are inherently superior, we recognize that instructors with marginalized identities—given documented student biases against women (15) and faculty of color (16, 17)—may face a delicate balance between establishing and dismantling authority in the classroom. In any context, this activity needs to be conducted with respect and humor for all parties involved to achieve the goals of normalizing mistakes as part of learning.

Suggestions from open-ended feedback (Appendix 6, Supplemental Table 2) identified clear paths for refinement: students requested more relevant or challenging questions, clearer instructions, broader participation, and use of AI tools to help draft prompts. These insights have already shaped our next steps. A revised version of STP, incorporating many of these suggestions, will be implemented in future semesters across multiple courses. While an AI option was available, it was not utilized, so we cannot yet comment on its potential influence on SDT. We also plan to embed STP prompts throughout the course to reinforce mistake-friendly reasoning as content becomes more complex and to track whether early comfort gains lead to sustained engagement over time.

To promote adoption, we are designing a one-hour faculty workshop, alongside ready-to-use materials, including a facilitator’s guide (Appendixes 1–3), to support low-barrier implementation and encourage cross-campus sharing. We also provide an Implementation Matrix that maps student preparation and instructor actions to outcomes aligned with autonomy, competence, and relatedness outcomes (Appendix 7, Supplemental Table 3). Future versions will test peer-led and AI-assisted formats for scalability.

By inviting students into the instructor’s reasoning process, this low-prep, high-impact activity cultivates trust, reframes intellectual vulnerability, and models the habits of mind that support deeper learning. Normalizing mistakes as opportunities for growth fosters psychological safety, reduces anxiety, and encourages resilient engagement. All it takes is a willingness to model uncertainty with humility and humor.

ETHICS APPROVAL

The collection of post-activity survey data was approved by the St. John Fisher University IRB committee (approval number 4828-091924-06).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00252-25.

Appendix 1. jmbe.00252-25-s0001.docx.

Stump the Professor: lesson plan and facilitator's guide.

Appendix 2. jmbe.00252-25-s0002.docx.

Stump the Professor: activity worksheet.

Appendix 3. jmbe.00252-25-s0003.docx.

Stump the Professor: post-activity survey.

Appendix 4. jmbe.00252-25-s0004.docx.

Summary of statistical analysis for STP post-activity survey.

Appendix 5. jmbe.00252-25-s0005.docx.

Supplemental Table 1: Categorized open-ended responses with representative quotes.

Appendix 6. jmbe.00252-25-s0006.docx.

Supplemental Table 2: Student suggestions for improving STP activity.

Appendix 7. jmbe.00252-25-s0007.docx.

Supplemental Table 3: Implementation matrix of STP activities and outcomes aligned with SDT goals.

ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.