We found 64 results that contain "#onlinelearning"

Instructional Guidance Is Key to Promoting Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses Written by: Jay Loftus Ed.D. (MSU / CTLI) & Michele Jacobsen, Ph.D. (Werklund School of Education - University of Calgary)
Abstract - Active learning strategies tend to originate from one of two dominant philosophical perspectives. The first position is active learning as an instructional philosophy, whereby inquiry-based and discovery learning are primary modalities for acquiring new information. The second perspective considers active learning a strategy to supplement the use of more structured forms of instruction, such as direct instruction. From the latter perspective, active learning is employed to reinforce conceptual learning following the presentation of factual or foundational knowledge. This review focuses on the second perspective and uses of active learning as a strategy. We highlight the need and often overlooked requirement for including instructional guidance to ensure active learning, which can be effective and efficient for learning and learners.
Keywords - Active learning, instructional guidance, design strategy, cognitive load, efficiency, online and blended courses
 
Introduction
Learner engagement in online courses has been a central theme in educational research for several years (Martin, Sun and Westing, 2020). As we consider the academic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020 and started to subside in 2022, it is essential to reflect on the importance of course quality (Cavanaugh, Jacquemin and Junker, 2023) and learner experience in online courses (Gherghel, Yasuda and Kita, 2023). Rebounding from our collected experience, learner engagement continues to be an important element of course design and delivery. This fact was highlighted in 2021, when the United States Department of Education (DOE) set forth new standards for institutions offering online courses. To be eligible for Title IV funding, new standards require non-correspondence courses to ensure regular and substantive interactions (RSI) between instructors and students (Downs, 2021). This requirement necessitates the need to find ways to engage students allowing instructors the ability to maximize their interactions. One possible solution is to use active learning techniques that have been shown to increase student engagement and learning outcomes (Ashiabi & O’ Neal, 2008; Cavanaugh et al., 2023).
Active learning is an important instructional strategy and pedagogical philosophy used to design quality learning experiences and foster engaging and interactive learning environments. However, this is not a novel perspective. Many years ago in their seminal work, Chickering and Gamson (1987) discussed the issue of interaction between instructors and students, suggesting that this was an essential practice for quality undergraduate education. The newfound focus on active learning strategies has become more pronounced following an examination of instructional practices from 2020 to 2022. For example, Tan, Chng, Chonardo, Ng  and Fung (2020) examined how chemistry instructors incorporated active learning into their instruction to achieve equivalent learning experiences in pre-pandemic classrooms. Similarly, Misra and Mazelfi (2021) described the need to incorporate group work or active learning activities into remote courses to: ‘increase students’ learning motivation, enforce mutual respect for friends’ opinions, foster excitement’ (p. 228). Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara (2021) found that gamification as a form of active learning, ‘helped to motivate students to participate actively and improved their academic performance, in a setting where the mode of instruction was remote, synchronous, and online’ (p.43). Further, the implementation of active learning, particularly gamification, was found to be helpful for promoting a more humanizing learning experience (Rincon-Flores & Santos-Guevara, 2021).
This review examines the use of active learning and presents instructional guidance as an often-overlooked element that must be included to make active learning useful and effective. The omission of explicit and direct instructional guidance when using active learning can be inefficient, resulting in an extraneous cognitive burden on learners (Lange, Gorbunova, Shcheglova and Costley, 2022). We hope to outline our justification through a review of active learning and offer strategies to ensure that the implementation of active learning is effective.
Active Learning as an Instructional Philosophy
Active learning is inherently a ‘student-centered’ instructional paradigm that is derived from a constructivist epistemological perspective (Krahenbuhl, 2016; Schunk, 2012). Constructivism theorizes that individuals construct their understanding through interactions and engagements, whereby the refinement of skills and knowledge results over time (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Through inquiry, students produce experiences and make connections that lead to logical and conceptual growth (Bada & Olusegun, 2015). Engaging learners in activities, tasks, and planned experiences is an overarching premise of active learning as an instructional philosophy. As an overarching instructional philosophy, the role of instructional guidance can be minimized. As Hammer (1997) pointed out many years ago, the role of the instructor in these environments is to provide content and materials, and students are left make ‘discoveries’ through inquiry.
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is an instructional practice that falls under the general category of ‘active learning’. The tenets of IBL adhere to a constructivist learning philosophy (de Jong et al., 2023) and can be characterized by the following six elements (Duncan & Chinn, 2021). Students will:

Generate knowledge through investigation of a novel issue or problem.
Work ‘actively’ to discover new findings.
Use of evidence to derive conclusions.
Take responsibility for their own learning through ‘epistemological agency’ (Chinn & Iordanou, 2023) and share their learning with a community of learners.
Use problem-solving and reasoning for complex tasks.
Collaborate, share ideas, and derive solutions with peers.

Historically, inquiry-based learning as a form of active learning was adopted as an overall instructional paradigm in disciplines such as medicine and was closely aligned with problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1996). Proponents of PBL advocate its use because of its emphasis on the development of skills such as communication, collaboration, and critical thinking (Dring, 2019). Critics of these constructivist approaches to instruction highlight the absence of a structure and any form of instructional guidance (Zhang & Cobern, 2021). Instead, they advocate a more explicit form of instruction such as direct instruction (Zhang, Kirschner, Corben and Sweller, 2022).
The view that a hybrid of IBL coupled with direct instruction is the optimal approach to implementing active learning has been highlighted in the recent academic literature (de Jong et al., 2023). The authors suggest that the selection of direct instruction or active learning strategies, such as IBL, should be guided by the desired outcomes of instruction. If the goal of instruction is the acquisition of more foundational or factual information, direct instruction is the preferred strategy. Conversely, IBL strategies are more appropriate ‘for the promotion of deep understanding and transferrable conceptual understanding of topics that are open-ended or susceptible to misconceptions’ (de Jong et al., 2023 p. 7).
The recommendation to use both direct instruction and approaches like IBL has reframed active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching pedagogical philosophy. Active learning should be viewed as a technique or strategy coupled with direct instructional approaches (de Jong et al., 2023).
Active Learning as an Instructional Strategy
Approaching active learning as an instructional strategy rather than an overarching instructional philosophy helps clarify and address the varying perspectives found in the literature. Zhang et al. (2022) suggested that there is a push to emphasize exploration-based pedagogy. This includes instructional approaches deemed to be predicated on inquiry, discovery, or problem-based approaches. This emphasis has resulted in changes to curricular policies that mandate the incorporation of these instructional philosophies. Zhang et al. (2022) discussed how active learning approaches can be incorporated into science education policy to emphasize ‘inquiry’ approaches, despite adequate evidence for effectiveness.  Zhang et al. (2022) stated that the ‘disjoint between policy documents and research evidence is exacerbated by the tendency to ignore categories of research that do not provide the favored research outcomes that support teaching science through inquiry and investigations’ (p. 1162). Instead, Zhang et al. (2022) advocate for direct instruction as the primary mode of instruction in science education with active learning or ‘inquiry’ learning incorporated as a strategy, arguing that conceptual or foundational understanding ‘should not be ‘traded off’ by prioritizing other learning outcomes’ (p. 1172).
In response to Zhang et al. ’s (2022) critique, de Jong et al. (2023) argued that research evidence supports the use of inquiry-based instruction for the acquisition of conceptual understanding in science education. They asserted that both inquiry-based (or active learning approaches) and direct instruction serve specific learning needs. Direct instruction may be superior for foundational or factual learning, while inquiry-based or active learning may be better for conceptual understanding and reinforcement. The conclusion of de Jong et al. ’s (2023) argument suggests the use of a hybrid of direct instruction and active learning techniques, such as inquiry-based designs, depending on the stated learning objectives of the course or the desired outcomes.
This hybrid approach to instructional practice can help ensure that intended learning outcomes are matched with effective instructional strategies. Furthermore, a hybrid approach can help maintain efficiency in learning rather than leaving the acquisition of stated learning outcomes to discovery or happenstance (Slocum & Rolf, 2021).  This notion was supported by Nerantzi's (2020) suggestion that ‘students learn best when they are active and immersed in the learning process, when their curiosity is stimulated, when they can ask questions and debate in and outside the classroom, when they are supported in this process and feel part of a learning community’ (p. 187). Emphasis on learner engagement may support the belief that active learning strategies combined with direct instruction may provide an optimal environment for learning. Active learning strategies can be used to reinforce the direct or explicit presentation of concepts and principles (Lapitan Jr, Tiangco, Sumalinog, Sabarillo and  Diaz, 2021).
Recently, Zhang (2022) examined the importance of integrating direct instruction with hands-on investigation as an instructional model in high school physics classes. Zhang (2022) determined that ‘students benefit more when they develop a thorough theoretical foundation about science ideas before hands-on investigations’ (p. 111). This supports the earlier research in post-secondary STEM disciplines as reported by Freeman, Eddy, McDonough and Wenderoth (2014), where the authors suggested that active learning strategies help to improve student performance. The authors further predicted that active learning interventions would show more significant learning gains when combined with ‘required exercises that are completed outside of formal class sessions’ (p. 8413).
Active Learning Strategies
Active learning is characterized by activities, tasks, and learner interactions. Several characteristics of active learning have been identified, including interaction, peer learning, and instructor presence (Nerantzi, 2020). Technology affords students learning opportunities to connect pre-, during-, and post-formal learning sessions (Zou & Xie, 2019; Nerantzi, 2020). The interactions or techniques that instructors use help determine the types of interactions and outcomes that will result. Instructors may be ‘present’ or active in the process but may not provide adequate instructional guidance for techniques to be efficient or effective (Cooper, Schinske and Tanner, 2021; Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller. 2001). To highlight this gap, we first consider the widely used technique of think-pair-share, an active learning strategy first introduced by Lyman (1981). This active learning strategy was introduced to provide all students equitable opportunities to think and discuss ideas with their peers. The steps involved in this technique were recently summarized (Cooper et al., 2021): i) provide a prompt or question to students, (ii) give students a chance to think about the question or prompt independently, (iii) have students share their initial answers/responses with a neighbor in a pair or a small group, and (iv) invite a few groups a chance to share their responses with the whole class.
Instructional guidance outlines the structure and actions associated with a task. This includes identifying the goals and subgoals, and suggesting strategies or algorithms to complete the task (Kalyuga et al., 2001). Employing the strategy of think-pair-sharing requires more instructional guidance than instructors may consider. The title of the strategy foreshadows what students will ‘do’ to complete the activity. However, instructional guidance is essential to help students focus on the outcome, rather than merely enacting the process of the activity. Furthermore, instructional guidance or instructions given to students when employing think-pair-sharing can help make this activity more equitable. Cooper et al. (2021) point out that equity is an important consideration when employing think-pair-share. Often, think-pair-share activities are not equitable during the pair or share portion of the exercise, and can be dominated by more vocal or boisterous students. Instructional guidance can help ensure that the activity is more equitable by providing more explicit instructions on expectations for sharing. For example, the instructions for a think-pair-share activity may include those that require each student to compose and then share ideas on a digital whiteboard or on a slide within a larger shared slide deck. The opportunity for equitable learning must be built into the instructions given to students. Otherwise, the learning experience could be meaningless or lack the contribution of students who are timid or find comfort in a passive role during group learning.
Further considerations for instructional guidance are necessary since we now use various forms of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to promote active learning strategies. Web conferencing tools, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, were used frequently during the height of required remote or hybrid teaching (Ahshan, 2021). Activities that separated students into smaller work groups via breakout rooms or unique discussion threads often included instructions on what students were to accomplish in these smaller collaborative groups. However, the communication of expectations or explicit guidance to help direct students in these groups were often not explicit or were not accessible once the students had been arranged into their isolated workspaces. These active learning exercises would have benefited from clear guidance and instructions on how to ‘call for help’ once separated from the larger group meetings. For example, Li, Xu, He, He, Pribesh, Watson and Major, (2021) described an activity for pair programming that uses zoom breakout rooms. In their description, the authors outlined the steps learners were expected to follow to successfully complete the active learning activity, as well as the mechanisms students used to ask for assistance once isolated from the larger Zoom session that contained the entire class. The description by Li et al. (2021) provided an effective approach to instructional guidance for active learning using Zoom.  Often, instructions are verbalized or difficult to refer to once individuals are removed from the general or common room. The lack of explicit instructional guidance in these activities can result in inefficiency (Kalyuga et al., 2001) and often inequity (Cooper et al., 2021).
The final active learning approach considered here was a case study analysis of asynchronous discussion forums. To extend engagement with course content, students were assigned a case study to discuss in a group discussion forum. The group is invited to apply course concepts and respond to questions as they analyze the case and prepare recommendations and a solution (Hartwell et al., 2021). Findings indicate that case study analysis in discussion forums as an active learning strategy “encouraged collaborative learning and contributed to improvement in cognitive learning” (Seethamraju, 2014, p. 9). While this active learning strategy can engage students with course materials to apply these concepts in new situations, it can also result in a high-volume-low-yield set of responses and posts without sufficient instructional guidance and clear expectations for engagement and deliverables. Hartwell, Anderson, Hanlon, and Brown (2021) offer guidance on the effective use of online discussion forums for case study analysis, such as clear expectations for student work in teams (e.g., a team contract), ongoing teamwork support through regular check-ins and assessment criteria, clear timelines and tasks for individual analysis, combined group discussion and cross-case comparison, review of posted solutions, and requirements for clear connections between case analysis and course concepts.
Active Learning & Cognitive Load Theory
In a recent review of current policy and educational standards within STEM disciplines, Zhang et al. (2022) argued that structured instructional approaches such as direct instruction align more closely with cognitive-based learning theories. These theories are better at predicting learning gains and identifying how learning occurs. Cognitive load theory is one such theory based on three main assumptions. First, humans have the capacity to obtain novel information through problem-solving or from other people. Obtaining information from other individuals is more efficient than generating solutions themselves. Second, acquired information is confronted by an individual’s limited capacity to first store information in working memory and then transfer it to unlimited long-term memory for later use. Problem-solving imposes a heavy burden on limited working memory. Thus, learners often rely on the information obtained from others. Finally, information stored in long-term memory can be transferred back to working memory to deal with familiar situations (Sweller, 2020). The recall of information from long-term memory to working memory is not bound by the limits of the initial acquisition of information in working memory (Zhang et al., 2022).
Zhang et al. (2022) state that ‘there never is a justification for engaging in inquiry-based learning or any other pedagogically identical approaches when students need to acquire complex, novel information’ (p. 1170). This is clearly a one-sided argument that focuses on the acquisition of information rather than the application of acquired information. This also presents an obvious issue related to the efficiency of acquiring novel information. However, Zhang et al. (2022) did not argue against the use of active learning or inquiry learning strategies to help reinforce concepts, or the use of the same to support direct instruction.
The combination of active learning strategies with direct instruction can be modified using assumptions of cognitive load, which highlights the need to include instructional guidance with active learning strategies. The inclusion of clear and precise instructions or instructional guidance is critical for effective active learning strategies (Murphy, 2023). As de Jong et al. (2023) suggest, ‘guidance is (initially) needed to make inquiry learning successful' (p.9). We cannot assume that instructional guidance is implied through the name of the activity or can be determined from the previous learning experiences of students. Assumptions lead to ambiguous learning environments that lack instructional guidance, force learners to infer expectations, and rely on prior and/or potentially limited active learning experiences. In the following section, we offer suggestions for improving the use of active learning strategies in online and blended learning environments by adding instructional guidance.
Suggestions for Improving the Use of Active Learning in Online and Blended Courses
The successful implementation of active learning depends on several factors. One of the most critical barriers to the adoption of active learning is student participation. As Finelli et al. (2018) highlighted, students may be reluctant to participate demonstrating behaviors such as, ‘not participating when asked to engage in an in-class activity, distracting other students, performing the required task with minimal effort, complaining, or giving lower course evaluations’ (p. 81). These behaviors are reminiscent of petulant adolescents, often discouraging instructors from implementing active learning in the future. To overcome this, the authors suggested that providing a clear explanation of the purpose of the active learning exercise would help curb resistance to participation. More recently, de Jong et al. (2023) stated a similar perspective that ‘a key issue in interpreting the impact of inquiry-based instruction is the role of guidance’ (p. 5). The inclusion of clear and explicit steps for completing an active learning exercise is a necessary design strategy. This aspect of instructional guidance is relatively easy to achieve with the arrival of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools used to support instructors. As Crompton and Burke (2024) pointed out in their recent review, ‘ChatGPT can assist teachers in the creation of content, lesson plans, and learning activities’ (p.384). More specifically, Crompton and Burke (2024) suggested that generative AI could be used to provide step-by-step instructions for students. To illustrate this point, we entered the following prompt into the generative AI tool, goblin.tools (https://goblin.tools/) ‘Provide instructions given to students for a carousel activity in a college class.’ The output is shown in Fig. 1. This tool is used to break down tasks into steps, and if needed, it can further break down each step into a more discrete sequence of steps.

Figure 1 . Goblin.tools instructions for carousel active learning exercises.
The omission of explicit steps or direct instructional guidance in an active learning exercise can potentially increase extraneous cognitive load (Klepsch & Seufert, 2020; Sweller, 2020). This pernicious impact on cognitive load is the result of the diversion of one’s limited capacity to reconcile problems (Zhang, 2022). Furthermore, the complexity of active learning within an online or blended course is exacerbated by the inclusion of technologies used for instructional purposes. Instructional guidance should include requisite guidance for tools used in active learning. Again, generative AI tools, such as goblin.tools, may help mitigate the potential burden on cognitive load. For example, the use of webconferencing tools, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, has been pervasive in higher education. Anyone who uses these tools can relate to situations in which larger groups are segmented into smaller groups in isolated breakout rooms. Once participant relocation has occurred, there is often confusion regarding the intended purpose or goals of the breakout room. Newer features, such as collaborative whiteboards, exacerbate confusion and the potential for excessive extraneous load. Generative AI instructions (see Figure 2) could be created and offered to mitigate confusion and cognitive load burden.

Figure 2. Zoom collaborative whiteboard instructions produced by goblin.tools
 
Generative AI has the potential to help outline the steps in active learning exercises. This can be used to minimize confusion and serve as a reference for students. However, instruction alone is often insufficient to make active learning effective. As Finelli et al. (2018) suggest, the inclusion of a rationale for implementing active learning is an effective mechanism to encourage student participation. To this end, we suggest the adoption of what  Bereiter (2014) called Principled Practical Knowledge (PPK) which consists of the combination of ‘know-how’ with ‘know why’ (Bereiter, 2014). This perspective develops out of learners’ efforts to solve practical problems. It is a combination of knowledge that extends beyond simply addressing the task at hand. There is an investment of effort to provide a rationale or justification to address the ‘know why’ portion of PPK (Bereiter, 2014). Creating conditions for learners to develop ‘know-how’ is critical when incorporating active learning strategies in online and blended courses. Instructional guidance can reduce ambiguity and extraneous load and can also increase efficiency and potentially equity.
What is typically not included in the instructional guidance offered to students is comprehensive knowledge that outlines the requirements for technology that is often employed in active learning strategies. Ahshan (2021) suggests that technology skill competency is essential for the instructors and learners to implement the activities smoothly. Therefore, knowledge should include the tools employed in active learning. Instructors cannot assume that learners have a universal baseline of technological competency and thus need to be aware of this diversity when providing instructional guidance.
An often-overlooked element of instructional guidance connected to PPK is the ‘know-why’ component. Learners are often prescribed learning tasks without a rationale or justification for their utility. The underlying assumption for implementing active learning strategies is the benefits of collaboration, communication, and collective problem-solving are clear to learners (Dring, 2019; Hartikainen et al., 2019). However, these perceived benefits or rationales are often not provided explicitly to learners; instead, they are implied through use.
When implementing active learning techniques or strategies in a blended or online course one needs to consider not only the ‘know-how,’ but also the ‘know-why.’ Table 1 helps to identify the scope of instructional guidance that should be provided to students.
 
Table 1. Recommended Type of Instructional Guidance for Active Learning




 


Know How


Know Why




Activity


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Technology


Steps


Purpose / Rationale




Outcomes / Products


Completion


Goals




 
The purpose of providing clear and explicit instructional guidance to learners is to ensure efficiency, equity, and value in incorporating active learning strategies into online and blended learning environments. Along with our argument for “know-why” (Bereiter, 2012), we draw upon Murphy (2023) who highlights the importance of “know-how’ by stating, ‘if students do not understand how a particular learning design helps them arrive at a particular outcome, they tend to be less invested in a course’ (n.p.).
Clear instructional guidance does not diminish the authenticity of various active learning strategies such as problem-based or inquiry-based techniques. In contrast, guidance serves to scaffold the activity and clearly outline learner expectations. Design standards organizations, such as Quality Matters, suggest the inclusion of statements that indicate a plan for how instructors will engage with learners, as well as the requirements for learner engagement in active learning. These statements regarding instructor engagement could be extended to include more transparency in the selection of instructional strategies. Murphy (2023) suggested that instructors should ‘pull back the curtain’ and take a few minutes to share the rationale and research that informs their decision to use strategies such as active learning. Opening a dialogue about the design process with students helps to manage expectations and anxieties that students might have in relation to the ‘What?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ for the active learning exercises.
Implications for Future Research
We contend that a blend of direct instruction and active learning strategies is optimized by instructional guidance, which provides explicit know-how and know-why for students to engage in learning tasks and activities. The present discussion does not intend to evaluate the utility of active learning as an instructional strategy. The efficacy of active learning is a recurring theme in the academic literature, and the justification for efficacy is largely anecdotal or based on self-reporting data from students (Hartikainen, Rintala, Pylväs and Nokelainen, 2019). Regardless, the process of incorporating active learning strategies with direct instruction appears to be beneficial for learning (Ahshan, 2021; Christie & De Graaff, 2017; Mintzes, 2020), and more likely, the learning experience can be harder to quantify. Our argument relates to the necessary inclusion of instructions and guidance that make the goals of active learning more efficient and effective (de Jong et al., 2023). Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) stated earlier that knowledge about dominates traditional educational practice. It is the stuff of textbooks, curriculum guidelines, subject-matter tests, and typical school “projects” and “research” papers. Knowledge would be the product of active learning. In contrast, knowledge of, ‘suffers massive neglect’ (p. 101).  Knowledge enables learners to do something and allows them to actively participate in an activity. Knowledge comprises both procedural and declarative knowledge.  It is activated when the need for it is encountered in the action. Instructional guidance can help facilitate knowledge of, making the use of active learning techniques more efficient and effective.
Research is needed on the impact of instructional guidance on active learning strategies, especially when considering the incorporation of more sophisticated technologies and authentic problems (Rapanta, Botturi, Goodyear, Guardia and Koole 2021; Varvara, Bernardi, Bianchi, Sinjari and Piattelli, 2021). Recently, Lee (2020) examined the impact of instructor engagement on learning outcomes in an online course and determined that increased instructor engagement correlated with enhanced discussion board posts and student performance. A similar examination of the relationship between the instructional guidance provided and student learning outcomes would be a valuable next step. It could offer more explicit guidance and recommendations for the design and use of active learning strategies in online or blended courses.
Conclusion
Education was disrupted out of necessity for at least two years. This experience forced us to examine our practices in online and blended learning, as our sample size for evaluation grew dramatically. The outcome of our analysis is that effective design and inclusion of student engagement and interactions with instructors are critical for quality learning experiences (Rapanta et al., 2021; Sutarto, Sari and Fathurrochman, 2020; Varvara et al., 2021). Active learning appeals to many students (Christie & De Graaff, 2017) and instructors as it can help achieve many of the desired and required outcomes of our courses and programs. Our review and discussion highlighted the need to provide clear and explicit guidance to help minimize cognitive load and guide students through an invaluable learning experience. Further, instructors and designers who include explicit guidance participate in a metacognitive process, while they outline the purpose and sequence of steps required for the completion of active learning exercises. Creating instructions and providing a rationale for the use of active learning in a course gives instructors and designers an opportunity to reflect on the process and ensure that it aligns with the intended purpose or stated goals of the course. This reflective act makes active learning more intentional in use rather than employing it to ensure that students are present within the learning space.
 
References
Ahshan, R. (2021). A Framework of Implementing Strategies for Active Student Engagement in Remote/Online Teaching and Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090483
Ashiabi, G. S., & O’neal, K. K. (2008). A Framework for Understanding the Association Between Food Insecurity and Children’s Developmental Outcomes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 71–77.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2023). Variation in student perceptions of higher education course quality and difficulty as a result of widespread implementation of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1787–1802.
Chinn, C. A., & Iordanou, K. (2023). Theories of Learning. Handbook of Research on Science Education: Volume III.
Christie, M., & De Graaff, E. (2017). The philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 5–16.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N., & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a think–pair–share: Emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), fe1.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2024). The Educational Affordances and Challenges of ChatGPT: State of the Field. TechTrends, 1–13.
de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence–The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 100536.
Dring, J. C. (2019). Problem-Based Learning – Experiencing and understanding the prominence during Medical School: Perspective. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 47, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.09.004
Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2021). International handbook of inquiry and learning. Routledge.
Finelli, C. J., Nguyen, K., DeMonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Husman, J., Henderson, C., Shekhar, P., & Waters, C. K. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5).
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.
Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485–529.
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Hartwell, A., Anderson, M., Hanlon, P., & Brown, B. (2021). Asynchronous discussion forums: Five learning designs.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 5–23.
Klepsch, M., & Seufert, T. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science, 48(1), Article 1.
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Lange, C., Gorbunova, A., Shcheglova, I., & Costley, J. (2022). Direct instruction, worked examples and problem solving: The impact of instructional strategies on cognitive load. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–13.
Lapitan Jr, L. D., Tiangco, C. E., Sumalinog, D. A. G., Sabarillo, N. S., & Diaz, J. M. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 116–131.
Lee, J. W. (2020). The roles of online instructional facilitators and student performance of online class activity. Lee, Jung Wan (2020). The Roles of Online Instructional Facilitators and Student Performance of Online Class Activity. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(8), 723–733.
Li, L., Xu, L. D., He, Y., He, W., Pribesh, S., Watson, S. M., & Major, D. A. (2021). Facilitating online learning via zoom breakout room technology: A case of pair programming involving students with learning disabilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 12.
Lyman, F. (1981). Strategies for Reading Comprehension Think Pair Share. Unpublished Paper. University of Maryland Paper. Http://Www. Roe13. K12. Il.
Mintzes, J. J. (2020). From constructivism to active learning in college science. Active Learning in College Science: The Case for Evidence-Based Practice, 3–12.
Misra, F., & Mazelfi, I. (2021). Long-distance online learning during pandemic: The role of communication, working in group, and self-directed learning in developing student’s confidence. 225–234.
Murphy, J. T. (2023). Advice | 5 Ways to Ease Students Off the Lecture and Into Active Learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-ways-to-ease-students-off-the-lecture-and-onto-active-learning
Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(2), 184–195.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742.
Rincon-Flores, E. G., & Santos-Guevara, B. N. (2021). Gamification during Covid-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7157
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. The Cambridge.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Pearson Education, Inc.
Seethamraju, R. (2014). Effectiveness of using online discussion forum for case study analysis. Education Research International, 2014.
Slocum, T. A., & Rolf, K. R. (2021). Features of direct instruction: Content analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(3), 775–784.
Sutarto, S., Sari, D. P., & Fathurrochman, I. (2020). Teacher strategies in online learning to increase students’ interest in learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Jurnal Konseling Dan Pendidikan, 8(3), 129–137.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.
Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T., & Fung, F. M. (2020). How chemists achieve active learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to support remote teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2512–2518.
Varvara, G., Bernardi, S., Bianchi, S., Sinjari, B., & Piattelli, M. (2021). Dental Education Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Italy: Undergraduate Student Feedback, Future Perspectives, and the Needs of Teaching Strategies for Professional Development. Healthcare, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040454
Zhang, L. (2022). Guidance differs between teaching modes: Practical challenges in integrating hands-on investigations with direct instruction. Learning: Research and Practice, 8(2), 96–115.
Zhang, L., & Cobern, W. W. (2021). Confusions on “guidance” in inquiry-based science teaching: A response to Aditomo and Klieme (2020). Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 207–212.
Zhang, L., Kirschner, P. A., Cobern, W. W., & Sweller, J. (2022). There is an evidence crisis in science educational policy. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 1157–1176.
Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142.
 

Learn the underlying principles behind the QM Rubric and the critical elements of the QM quality assurance process. Learn about drafting helpful recommendations as you apply the Rubric to an actual course.

Course Length: Two weeks (May 9th-20th)Delivery Mode: Online (Asynchronous)Instruction: FacilitatedFee (Single Registration): $25 tech fee per enrollment (capped at 20 participants) Cost is being covered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI)// --> REGISTER HERE <-- //

Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements. Note that the Schedule & Checklist for Independent sessions may vary from the Schedule & Checklist provided here. 
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.


Recommended For:

Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.



Learning Objectives:

After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:

Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.




What Participants Need:


At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives.
Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.

 
 
What is Microsoft Teams? Microsoft Teams is a communication and collaboration tool which is part of the Microsoft Office365 suite of software applications. In one team workspace, the tool allows for real time collaborative work through chat, as well as file sharing. Other Teams features include calling, asynchronous chat and threaded conversations, meetings, and synchronous video conferencing for up to 250 attendees in a private Teams meeting.
  
Who might consider using Teams? Microsoft Teams might be ideal for instructors and students interested in having one workspace that allows sharing work, editing content collaboratively, storing and sharing files, instant chatting, setting up meetings, and video conferencing!  
 
Why use Teams? There are several reasons why you could choose to use Microsoft Teams. It is a useful tool for organizing content in a collaborative and engaging workspace for either a few individuals or large groups. Teams can be used across multiple devices. It is a free mobile application which students can communicate with regardless of location, without giving out personal contact details. Teams is a great alternative to other synchronous video conferencing tools which might not be available in some countries. 
 
How to use Teams? For teaching and learning with Teams, instructors can request a class team in D2L, set up a Team for a class and then create channels within the team. Channels can be around groups or specific topics. The online tutorial on how to use Microsoft Teams for remote and online learning is a great resource for learning more about Teams. 
 
Where to access Teams? With an MSU net ID, Teams can be accessed by going to spartan365.msu.edu and logging in with your MSU credentials. To learn more about all the features and functions of the tool, the Microsoft Team homepage is a great resource. 
 
Stories/Feedback? We would love to hear from you about your experiences with Microsoft Teams. How are you using Teams in your class? What are your students’ perceptions of Teams and experiences so far? If you would like to share some of your Teams stories (frustrations, joys, surprises) or need more information about Teams, contact the MSU IT Service Desk at ithelp@msu.edu.  
 

Security
It's important to safeguard your personal computers, mobile phones, tablets, and other devices.
Computer Best Practices

Make sure your personal firewall is turned on.

Learn more about configuring Windows firewalls and MacOS X firewalls.




Perform regular operating system, software, and app updates. These updates often include security patches.

Learn more about Windows and MacOS X operating system updates.
Learn more about enabling automatic Windows software updates.
For questions and concerns related to your operating system, contact the IT Service Desk at (517) 432-6200




Install antivirus and antispyware software. Also consider anti-malware.

Schedule daily antivirus updates and scans of your computer and mobile devices.
Learn more about recommended downloads and patches.
Antivirus and antispyware software can be purchased for your computer at the MSU Tech Store at an educational discount by emailing techstore@msu.edu.




Upgrade to the latest version of your browser and take advantage of the security features available.

Some browser security features include site pinning, safe browsing, and auto updates. These features can protect against phishing and malware attacks.
Investigate the built-in security features on your mobile devices.
Learn more about security features in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome.



SecureIT
MSU IT continuously works to keep the community safe and connected, but sound cybersecurity practices are everyone’s responsibility. Educate yourself on safe computing, data care, and other information security resources at secureit.msu.edu.
 
Please report security incidents and forward suspicious emails targeting the MSU community to abuse@msu.edu. Contact MSU IT for questions or concerns: Call 517-432-6200 or 1-844-678-6200, email ithelp@msu.edu, or chat go.msu.edu/itchat.

This week, we are featuring Dr. Eleanor (Ellie) Louson, one of the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation's educational developers! Ellie earned her bachelor’s degrees from Bishop’s University, her master’s degree in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Toronto, and her Ph.D. in Science & Technology Studies at York University. She has a joint-appointment as an educator in Lyman Briggs College, MSU, where she teaches courses in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science. Her research interests include wildlife films’ representation of animal behavior and interdisciplinary, experiential teaching and learning. Her teaching, research, and learning design backgrounds have taught her the value of interdisciplinarity, storytelling, and engagement for higher education. Ellie is originally from the Montreal area and plays in a rock band. Ellie has also been a recipient of the #iteachmsu Educator Award!
Read more about Dr. Louson’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by her responses! 


In one word, what does being an educator mean to you?  
My one word is “care” but it’s more care-as-doing than the emotional dimension of caring. As a teacher, I want to support my students being able to thrive in our class and in their broader lives. I do many things before and during class to support them, including a pre-course survey to learn about their tech and accessibility needs, as well as anything relevant to their situation during the pandemic. I design my classes with lots of flexibility and many assignments are open format. I use an Annotated Syllabus activity so that students can ask questions and make suggestions before I finalize it.
What does this word/quality looks like in your practice? Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so how?
I check in with students in lots of ways. At certain points in the semester, I check in to make sure they understand their progress towards the learning goals and flag any missing assignments. I also start each class with a check-in to give them a mindful moment to reflect on how they’re doing in 3 words, and I turn those check-ins into a word cloud to visualize patterns and to help me be responsive to the class’ energy levels. [Here’s an example word cloud. I use www.wordclouds.com to generate them]
 

I don’t have late penalties, but weekly assignments are spread throughout the syllabus as a marker of the expected pace of work. Students have full lives beyond the course and sometimes it’s reasonable for them to focus on other things. But I also care about their learning. I build in tutorials and extra office hours leading up to major assignments to make sure they can get the help they need. Those assignments also have a draft stage where I give feedback on their in-progress work. And they can revise assignments to improve their grades. I hope this contributes to a climate where it’s ok to try things and fail.
Tell us more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (AKA, where do you work?)
I work as an educational developer in the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation, MSU’s new teaching center, which launched this fall. My colleagues and I work to support and connect MSU’s educators. Before that, I was part of the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology. I’m also one of the teaching faculty in Lyman Briggs College, where I teach courses in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science to mainly STEM undergrads. I’m also fortunate to be a director of the CTLI Grad Fellowship, alongside my colleague Makena Neal.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role? Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this? 
One challenge for me is that I’m too eager to say “yes” to opportunities that improve academic communities. I like to help, and I know the value of academic service work, so I’m glad to be able to contribute my design or communications skills to a project. But if I take on too many commitments, I am less able to be useful to those efforts. Another downside is that I get overwhelmed! By having stronger boundaries around my downtime and waiting 24 hours before taking on any new commitments, I can better protect my time and energy and make more of a positive difference for the things I deliberately take on..
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I learned a lot during the pivot to online teaching about building effective and engaging online courses, and many of those things translate to hybrid and in-person courses as well. I try to give students clarity about expectations, assignments, and the cadence of the class. I think I feel most successful when I share practices that work for me and then fellow educators tell me that they tried them in their own courses and that it helped. I write (and co-author) pedagogy articles for my HPS disciplinary newsletter that I hope help people in my discipline improve their teaching or meet the challenge of online learning. My favorite so far is called “You Can Teach Online! Designing effective and engaging online courses.”
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU?
I love iteach.msu as a space for educators to connect and share our ideas and teaching practices. I like learning about new tools and teaching tips on the platform. And I’ve had great experiences sharing resources on iteach.msu. I’ve had MSU educators connect with me after they discovered our playlist for the Spartan Studios Playkit, which is a set of resources for interdisciplinary, experiential teaching based on a pilot project of courses. It’s also really useful that #iteachmsu articles can have audiences beyond MSU. For example, when I present the Spartan Studios project at external conferences, I can share links with the audience and the content is accessible.
I’m interested in learning more about ungrading, both because I think ungrading practices give students more ownership into their own learning and metacognitive reflection, and (probably more selfishly) because I want less grading to do.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) this semester?
I’m teaching a Science and the Environment course for Lyman Briggs, and one of the major assignments has students researching conservation initiatives. They also vote (as well as decide on a voting process) to make a real donation to one of the initiatives. It can be a conservation charity, awareness campaign, research institute; any organization that is focused on conservation research or practice. In the past this activity really engaged the students because they end up advocating for the groups, they think are the most impactful or need our donation the most. Since it’s “real” in a way that many academic assignments aren’t, they seem to care about how we make the decision. They also learn about the economics of conservation, and last year a few students got really interested in ranked-choice voting processes. I’m looking forward to improving the assignment based on feedback from last year and learning more about how to teach students to build effective presentations, because communicating in a variety of formats is a key learning objective for the course.
 
Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. Submitted educators recieve a message of gratitude from #iteachmsu and are recognized annually with the Provost's #iteachmsu Educator Award. Submissions are also used to select educators to appear in our Educator Stories features! 

This week, we are featuring Breana Yaklin, a Learning Experience Designer in the Broad College of Business.  Breana was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator form) regularly!
Read more about Breana’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!

You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you? 
Learning
Share with me what this word/quality looks like in your practice?
As an educator, I’m focused on teaching and learning, and I try to stay more focused on the learner and what their needs are. Being an educator also means that I’m constantly learning from others who are experts in the field or who share their experiences
Tell me more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (Aka, where do you work?)
I currently work for Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. I’m a Learning Experience Designer in the Learning Technology and Design department. My work right now is focused on supporting the EMBA Flex program, which includes both on-campus live synchronous sessions and online asynchronous learning. I work with the faculty teaching the program to help them design their courses and think through the best ways to teach in a flexible format, and how to take advantage of the on-campus sessions and the asynchronous learning. As a Learning Experience Designer, I have to focus on (1) the student needs as an end-goal, and (2) the faculty needs, as they are the ones I’m working with directly.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role?
A challenge I frequently encounter is one that I think everyone sees in their work as an educator: time. The faculty I work with to develop their courses are pressed for time and have to balance multiple priorities, and sometimes the course I’m consulting on gets pushed back as a priority because they don’t have the time to dedicate to it. I know that many of our students also have to balance multiple priorities. For the program I’m currently working on, we know that these students are working full time and often have families and related time constraints.
Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this?
Good course design and development takes time, as does investing in learning. If possible, I try to encourage leadership to support faculty time allocations toward course design and development. I also try to focus on making the best use of time during the course design and development process, for both faculty and students. How can I support this faculty member to use their time effectively towards designing and developing their course? I try to find resources, or create tools or templates to make the process easier or more efficient. How can I encourage the course design and development to take into account student time limitations? I discuss setting priorities and learning expectations with faculty, and how to best make use of the live in-class time and how to be flexible with the asynchronous time.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I listen and learn from others. I’m somewhat new to my current setting in Broad, but I’ve been at MSU for 6 years, and I have a network of colleagues across campus who I learn from. I’ve also worked on learning from others outside of MSU, at my previous institution (Baker College), and by networking at conferences and with colleagues on Twitter. I learn a lot from listening to others about their experiences, their work, and their research, and I add it all to my repertoire as an educator. 
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at msu? 
I’d like to see more discussion around online and hybrid teaching and learning, specifically, the existing research and practices around good online and hybrid (or blended or flex) teaching and learning and how we can continue to improve the online learning experience. This obviously has been a huge focus for the past year due to COVID, so it might seem like it has already been addressed. However, a lot of the work over the past year was fast and reactive (by necessity), and prior to COVID there has been years of work researching what good teaching and learning can and should look like online. I think education will be permanently changed (if it hasn’t already) by what happened over the past year, and I think we should be prepared for more online and hybrid education to be more flexible and meet the needs of our students and our educators.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
I’m looking forward to debriefing with the first round of faculty I worked with on the EMBA Flex program. I’m excited to learn how their courses went as they taught them for the first time in this new format, what lessons they learned, how the students responded, and what we can do to continue to improve the courses for the next time. I’m hoping to speak with some students in the program to hear directly from them on what’s working and what could be improved upon to create a better learning experience. 
I’m also excited to share that I’ll be working with Dr. Melissa Hortman, Director of Instructional Technology at Medical University of South Carolina, to conduct a literature review on course modalities and flexible learning approaches, and we’ll be presenting our results at the Online Learning Consortium Innovate Conference in the spring.


Don't forget to celebrate individuals you see making a difference in teaching, learning, or student success at MSU with #iteachmsu's Thank an Educator initiative. You might just see them appear in the next feature!

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan State University, like many universities, closed its on-campus offerings and hastily moved to remote learning in March 2020. In addition to moving all classes online, students were asked to leave on-campus housing if possible. As COVID-19 cases continued to increase through the summer, plans to reopen in the fall were halted and most institutions announced they would continue offering instruction through remote learning. At the start of the spring 2020 semester, we collected data from MSU students enrolled in introductory economics courses about their grade expectations and views of economics as a major. In order to understand how students responded to the disruption generated by the pandemic, we began collecting additional data about the direct effects of the pandemic on their learning environment, including changes to living arrangements, internet access, studying behavior, and general well-being. Survey data were collected at the beginning and end of the spring, summer, and fall terms of 2020. Supplementing this survey data with administrative data on demographic characteristics and actual grade outcomes, we investigate how the pandemic affects students and how students' final grades in their economics course relate to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning. We find the effects vary with student background characteristics (including race, gender, GPA, and first-generation college status) and final grades are related to internet connectivity, stress, and anxiety. These unique data allow us to provide a descriptive analysis of students' reactions to an unprecedented disruption to their educational environment.

To access a PDF of the "Learning in the Time of COVID-19" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
Learning in the Time of COVID-19 
Andrea Chambers, Stacy Dickert-Conlin, Steven J. Haider, and Scott A. Imberman 
Introduction 
This study provides a snapshot of how students were experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic in the month following the abrupt shift to online instruction and how students have adapted to the experience of remote learning more long term. It contributes to the concerns that the mental well-being and academic performance of students has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic. 
Research Questions 


What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation? 


How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning? 


Methodology 

Surveyed students enrolled in introductory economics courses from one large, public research university during three semesters (Spring, Summer, and Fall) of 2020. 
Students completed surveys at the beginning and end of the semester. 
Supplemented these data with administrative data on demographic characteristics and actual grade outcomes. 
Conducted multiple regression analyses of student characteristics on student perceptions and final semester grades. 

Survey 
The Two Surveys: 

Initial Survey – General information and grade students expected to earn in the class 
Final Survey – Students’ reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote learning  

Response Rate: 


Of the 6,665 eligible students, 3,445 students (52%) answered at least one of the COVID-related questions. 


COVID-Related Statements: 


My internet connectivity is sufficient to complete my economics coursework. 


My final grade in my economics course will be unaffected. 


My overall semester GPA will be unaffected. 


My time available for studying has increased. 


My ability to focus on my studies has declined. 


My anxiety about my studies has increased. 


My financial situation has worsened.  


Sample Descriptives 


Female: 47.3%, Male: 52.7% 




White: 71.5%, Black: 4.2%, Hispanic/Latinx: 4.7%, Asian: 6.6%, 2 or more Races: 2.7%, Other or Not Reported: 1.5%, International: 8.7% 


1st Year at MSU: 37.5%, 2nd year at MSU: 38.5%, 3rd Year at MSU: 16.5%, 4th Year or Later at MSU: 7.6% 


First-Generation College Student: 18.5% 


Results 
Image: A stacked bar chart detailing the percent of students who strongly agree and agreed with each COVID-related statement on displayed on top of the percent of students who strongly disagreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with each COVID-related statement. 
Title: Figure 1. Responses to COVID-Related Questions for Spring, Summer, and Fall 2020 
Details of image: 

My internet connectivity is sufficient: 83.3% strongly agree/agree and 16.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My econ course final grade will be unaffected: 36.0% strongly agree/agree and 64.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My overall semester GPA will be unaffected: 31.2% strongly agree/agree and 68.8% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My time available for studying has increased: 46.9% strongly agree/agree and 53.1% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My ability to focus on my studies has declined: 69.0% strongly agree/agree and 31.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My anxiety about my studies has increased: 74.0% strongly agree/agree and 26.0% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 
My financial situation has worsened: 36.3% strongly agree/agree and 63.7% strongly disagreed/disagreed/either agreed nor disagreed. 

Research Question 1: What demographic and academic factors are associated with student responses to questions about internet access, ability to focus, feelings of anxiety, and their financial situation? 
Empirical Strategy: where  is an indicator for whether the student agrees or strongly agrees with the statement. 
Ability to Focus 


April 2020: 83% of students report their ability to focus on their studies has declined.  


December 2020: 61.5% of students state feeling their ability to focus has declined.  


During the initial reaction to the pandemic and remote instruction, we do not see statistically significant differences across student characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, or first-generation college status. However, when we look at the continued response in the summer and fall semesters, female students are more likely to state their ability to focus on their studies has declined relative to their male peers by 9 percentage points. 


Anxiety about Studies 


Over 70% of students in the sample report an increase in anxiety about their studies in April 2020 and through Summer and Fall 2020. 




Female students are more likely to report an increase in anxiety relative to their male peers of around 8 percentage points in the Spring 2020 and 16 percentage points during Summer and Fall 2020.  


Financial Situation  


April 2020: 48.6% state that their financial situation has worsened. 


This condition was felt more by first-generation college students, women, and lower performing students compared to their respective peers.  


December 2020: 30% state their financial situation has worsened and first-generation college students during Summer and Fall 2020 are still more likely to experience a worsened condition. 


Research Question 2: How are students’ final grades in their economics course related to their responses to the pandemic and virtual learning? 
Empirical Strategy: 
where is a vector of COVID-related questions and  are the student background characteristics, year in college, GPA, and expected grade at the start of the semester. 


Internet Connectivity: Students who did not have sufficient internet connection earned lower final grades.  


COVID-Related Stress: In April 2020, students who strongly agree their ability to focus has decreased and students across all semesters who strongly agree their anxiety has increased earned lower final grades.  


Financial: Students who state their financial situation has worsened earned lower final grades in the summer and fall semesters. 


Discussion & Conclusions 


As many students in this study report feeling their ability to focus has declined and anxiety has increased, findings suggest women, first-generation college students, and lower performing students may be particularly vulnerable to these feelings and experiences.  


Survey results suggest financial situations worsened for first-generation college students, which could lead to food or housing insecurity for these students, issues which could lead to increased stress and anxiety, lower grades, and possibly prevent students from persisting in higher education.  


Requiring access to instruction via online learning has showcased the need for quality internet access. 




The coronavirus pandemic has raised a lot of questions about the future of online education, it is important to keep in mind the ways in which students are impacted by such a move. 

Michigan State University was an early leader adopter of an integrative studies approach to undergraduate general education. Unfortunately, this program has experienced structural changes that resulted in a significant increase in class sizes for ISS classes in particular. As a result, instruction in these classes has become largely didactic, and in many classes, student assessment is primarily measured through high-stakes, multiple-choice exams. For so many MSU students, this passive pedagogical approach leaves them disengaged and disinterested. The question remains: How can ISS faculty facilitate engaged and project-based interdisciplinary curriculum with the current scale of their large-format classes? It is in this context and around these challenges that this project takes shape, and with the support of a Hub Faculty Fellowship in 2020-2021, we set out to bring innovation to ISS. Over the course of three semesters and amidst mandated remote online learning, our instructional team designed and implemented a meaningful, engaged, interdisciplinary, and team-based research project into an ISS general education course (with enrollments of 300 students) on the broad topic of Material Culture Studies. For the course project, students were required to explore a complex integrative research topic of their choice related to Material Culture Studies. Their research developed within weekly benchmark steps and culminated in the production of a short documentary film over their chosen topic. All student films were then showcased in an end-of-semester virtual student film festival. The course project design and the student outcomes and experiences with this project are the focus of our presentation. Our research proposal team includes the ISS professor of the class, two teaching assistants (both who completed the film project as students in SS20), and three participant students (all who created films in FS20). Together with our various positionalities, we propose to present the findings of this innovative ISS pedagogical research in the form of an academic poster—a common format to present preliminary findings of a research project that is still in progress. Additionally, we will embed into our poster a link to our team-produced short film that documents this guiding course project in engaged digital storytelling within an ISS general education course. We hope this film will demonstrate that we are pedagogically practicing what we preach to our students.To access a PDF of the "ISS Innovation: Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education" poster, click here. Please note: This poster contains embedded videos that are accessible via the PDF or below. 
The title of this poster is:  ISS Innovation:  Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education. 
This poster contains several sections. The first section outlines the research problem and purpose and provides a brief literature review on the topic. This section ends with the articulation of the guiding research question. 
The second section is a table that describes the research methods and data collection choices for the project. This is followed by the third section that provides a detailed iconic logic model of the data analysis scheme for the research project. 
The fourth section presents selected findings from the project. There are three major findings presented, and accompanying each of the findings is a short YouTube video/film that was produced by the research team to give the viewers a comprehensive picture of the guiding course ISS project that this pedagogical research investigates.  
ISS Innovation: Active and Engaged Learning
Culturally Responsive CurriculumMotivating Creative Risk Taking
There are links to the associated film festival that showcases the documentary films that MSU students in the ISS class produced as their guiding course projects. The poster has a brief conclusion section and a references section.