We found 257 results that contain "ai incorporation"

This article provides an overview of preparing for classroom norms, especially for Fall 2024. This post is the fourth part of the Civil Discourse in Classrooms series and playlist.
Norms can help set expectations for students that will lessen any confusion that arises when students are not sure of what is appropriate. It is recommended that you set classroom norms through collaborating with students on norms and/or setting norms yourself from the beginning. Some example lesson plans for collaboratively setting norms are detailed on Carleton’s website, Stanford’s Teaching Center, and on MSU’s iTeach article on setting ground rules.
In addition, if an educator wants to set their own norms for students, some common norms may include:

Respect for All Voices: Listen actively, avoid interrupting, and ensure everyone has a chance to contribute.
Inclusivity and Equity: Encourage diverse perspectives and make space for quieter voices.
Open-Mindedness: Approach discussions with an open mind, considering different viewpoints.
Empathy and Compassion: Show empathy and support classmates in a non-judgmental way.
Confidentiality and Trust: Respect the confidentiality of personal stories and sensitive information.
Constructive Feedback: Offer respectful and constructive feedback, focusing on ideas and behaviors.
Accountability and Responsibility: Hold yourself and peers accountable to the agreed-upon norms.
Active Participation: Engage actively in class activities, coming prepared and contributing meaningfully.
Punctuality and Preparation: Arrive on time, be prepared, and complete assignments in advance.
Inclusive Language and Distraction-Free Environment: Use inclusive language, minimize distractions, and respect the learning environment.

Classroom Management Strategies
In addition to the tips provided on iTeach playlist on managing difficult classrooms, classroom management strategies can be extremely effective at establishing rapport, trust, and transparency with students. Managing disruption in a classroom is challenging, and having clear plans in place proactively is often helpful. Some classroom management strategies, as shared in the inclusive classroom activities article, include: 

Build rapport with learners, as it is one of the most effective ways to increase learners’ belonging and decrease problematic behavior. There are many ways to build rapport, such as sending introductory emails, asking learners to introduce themselves, having asynchronous check-ins with learners, getting to know their interests and goals through one-on-one interactions, providing feedback that also centers praise, and having email check-ins with all learners throughout the semester. Another way to build rapport is to learn learners' names and pronouns (if they share) and how to pronounce their names correctly.
Anticipate subject matter that may need content warnings and incorporate pathways for learners to opt-out of content that would put them in a place they can no longer learn effectively. You may also want to reflect and think about bringing up “controversial” issues into the classroom. 
Structure discussions to include all learner voices, such as “take a queue, ask to hear from those who have not spoken, wait until several hands are raised to call on anyone, use think-pair-share activities” (Oral Roberts University).
Acknowledge difficult current events (but do not force learners to discuss them) and provide learners with student resources if they want further support.
Provide opportunities for learners to give feedback throughout the semester. For example, you may distribute an anonymous survey near mid-terms asking learners what they would like to continue, what they want to see changed, and any open questions/concerns they have. 


Continue to read more about in the next article, “Preparing Before a ‘Hot Moment’ Occurs,” or return to the Civil Discourse in the Classroom playlist.

Title: Recognizing Burnout and Mapping Your Stress ResponsePresenter: Lisa Laughman (Health4U)Format: WorkshopDate: May 11th, 2023Time: 11:30 am - 12:30 pmClick here to viewDescription:Using a live poll on experiences of burnout, Lisa Laughman, Coordinator of the MSU Spartan Resilience Training Program, will talk about ways educators can map their stress response. Lisa's insights will include offering samples of practical grounding skills.  Over the past 30 years, Lisa has worked with others to craft the Spartan Resilience Training Model, a model which braids together social justice education and social emotional learning. The model incorporates core principles of healthy human functioning with several evidence-based theories to help people build capacity for emotional resilience, psychological flexibility, empathy, shame-resilience, self-compassion, mindfulness, courage building, and value-guided action. In this session, Lisa will also share the news about Mindful State website (coming soon) as a way for educators to bring mindfulness practices into their class rooms.  

Demystifying [Online] Student Engagement
January 18, 2024, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Dr. Ashley Moore
Join CTLI Affiliate and Assistant Professor, Dr. Ashley Moore, in a dialogue about common challenges engaging students in an online course setting. We’ll talk about how to set the stage for a warm classroom environment, different ways to check in with students, and pedagogical strategies to get student buy-in for your course—all grounded in humanizing praxis.Learn more and register here 
Online Program Director Coffee Hour: Best Practices in course design, QM alignment, and D2L templates
January 18, 2024, 1 – 2 p.m., virtual via ZoomCTLI invites you to join us for the Online Program Directors Coffee Hour session for the month of January. We will be focusing this months discussion on best practices in online course design, alignment with Quality Matters, and D2L course templates available at MSU. Please contact Alicia Jenner (jennera1@msu.edu) for event invitation.
Introduction to Peer Dialogues
January 18, 2024, 2 – 3 p.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Dr. Jay Loftus
Peer dialogue is a structured methodology for observation and feedback. It is intended to be a colleague-to-colleague process to help improve instructional practice, and ultimately student learning experiences and outcomes. Unlike a formal review of instructional practice that may occur as part of tenure and promotion, peer dialogue is a collegial and collaborative practice aimed at improving skills and strategies. In part 1 of peer dialogues participants will learn about the process.Learn more and register here 
Using Collaborative Discussion
January 24, 2024, 10 – 11:30 a.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Dr. Shannon Burton
CTLI is happy to host MSU's Office of the University Ombudsperson team as they share their expertise through the "2023-24 Conflict in Groups: Pedagogy, Projects and Possibilities" series. Learn more and register here 
"Welcome to My Classroom" Series: Pedagogy of Care Panel
January 25, 2024, 10 – 11 a.m., virtual via ZoomMediated by Dr. Makena Neal | Panelists include Dr. Crystal Eustice (CSUS) & Dustin DuFort Petty (BSP)
We're excited to start the new calendar year with a panel of educators discussing the what a "pedagogy of care" means to them and what it looks like in their learning environments.Learn more and register here 
Advising/Tutoring Appointment Systems Training
January 25, 2024, 2 – 3 p.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Katie Peterson and Patrick Beatty
Whether you are a new or current user of the Advising/Tutoring Appointment System, this session will provide guidance on different components of this system, including how to manage appointment availability, adding a student to you or another advisor’s schedule, and additional tips and tricks. Learn more and register here 
Book Discussion: “Teaching on days after: educating for equity in the wake of injustice”
January 30, 2024, 1:30 – 3 p.m., virtual via ZoomFacilitated by Drs. Makena Neal and Ashley Moore
For our second discussion, we’ll be reading “Teaching on days after: educating for equity in the wake of injustice" by Alyssa Hadley Dunn (published by Teachers College Press in 2022). This title is available via the MSU Main Library as an eBook (ProQuest EBook Central).Learn more and register here 
Boosting student engagement: Easy tactics and tools to connect in any modality
February 5, 2024, 1 – 2 p.m., virtual via ZoomFacilitated by Drs. Ellie Louson and Makena Neal
Using zoom chat, google docs and slides, word clouds, D2L, and other MSU tech tools, we will focus on low-barrier ways that instructors can connect with students, help students connect with each other, organize whole-class or small-group brainstorms, and translate effective in-person activities for hybrid or online classrooms.Learn more and register here 
Taking Care of Yourself in Times of Uncertainty
February 8, 2024, 9 – 10 a.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Jaimie Hutshison of the WorkLife Office
We can be creatures of habit. Things that are expected and planned allow us to feel more in control of our lives and our time. This presentation will address best practices for self-care. Learn more and register here 
Generative AI Open Office Hours
February 16, 2024, 12 – 1:30 p.m., virtual via ZoomHosted by Dr. Jeremy Van Hof & colleagues from the Enhanced Digitial Learning Initative
This time will be treated like "office hours", where any educator with questions or looking for futher conversation about Generative AI is welcome to join this zoom room whenever suits them!Learn more here
"Welcome to My Classroom" Series: Jessica Sender
February 20, 2024, 1 – 2 p.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Jessica Sender
This month, we are excited to hear from Jessica Sender, Health Sciences Librarian, Liaison to the College of Nursing, and CTLI Affiliate. Jessica will be showcasing the Anatomage Table (located in the Digital Scholarship Lab on 2West of the Main Library) and the ways it can be incorporated pedagogically to improve learning experiences. Learn more and register here 
Dialogue and Deliberation
February 21, 2024, 10 – 11 a.m., virtual via ZoomPresented by Dr. Shannon Burton
CTLI is happy to host MSU's Office of the University Ombudsperson team as they share their expertise through the "2023-24 Conflict in Groups: Pedagogy, Projects and Possibilities" series. Learn more and register here 

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.
 

Learning Objectives

Define transparent Task instructions
Describe the importance of clearly written task instructions in an assignment
List 10 tips for writing clearly stated task assignment instructions.
Identify whether the transparency in a set of task instructions is weak or strong 

Introduction
This is part 3 of a 5 part series of articles on Transparent Assignment Design (Part 1, Part 2)The second critical element of a transparent assignment is the Task. The task is what students should do and deals with the actions the students have to take to complete the assignment. 
The Significance of Transparency in Task
Have you ever had to follow a cooking recipe or build a piece of furniture with poor instructions? Perhaps the instructions were word-heavy or confusing, the steps were out of order, a step was missing, or the diagrams were incorrect, confusing, or absent. When writing instructions for an assignment, especially multi-step, scaffolded types of assignments, we need to think like Instructional Designers. A guiding question that should be at the forefront of an Instructional Designer’s mind is: How could a non-expert complete this activity with the fewest errors? Our goal as educators is to set students up for success, not to create obstacles with unclear instructions. Instructions should be concise, straightforward, include all the required tools/resources, and be seamless to follow.
The "Task" section explains to students the steps they need to take to complete the assignment. It often includes any additional resources that students will need, such as data sets, articles to cite, websites to visit, etc.

Watch:

10 Tips for Writing an Effective “Task” Section:
1. Keep it Simple:

Avoid text-heavy instructions. Over-explaining can lead to distraction and confusion.

2. Use Positive and Direct Instructions:

Cognitive psychologists have found that it is easier for our brains to process what ‘to do’ than what ‘not to do’. If you must add avoidance statements, start with what students should do first.
Focus on direct instructions for what students should do, and limit how often you focus on what students should not do.
Example: Instead of saying, "Don’t forget to use APA style," say, "Use APA style for citations."

3. Consistent Formatting:

Use sparing bolding, underlining, italicizing, highlighting, all caps and font color.
Overuse of these features can create accessibility problems for screen readers and dilute the importance of truly key information.

4. Utilize Visual Aids:

Incorporate screenshots, mini-videos, gifs, and diagrams. As the saying goes, pictures can speak a thousand words and sometimes it's just easier to see someone carry out the task first.

5. Use Lists:

Numbered or bulleted lists help cut back on words and make instructions clearer. Avoid excessive levels of granularity in your lists (e.g., 1.2.5.14), which can be confusing.

6. Leverage Collaborative Tools:

Consider using Google Docs or other collaborative, cloud-based processors instead of the upload/download method of sharing assignment documents. 
The perks of using cloud-based processors include avoiding multiple versions of the same document, allowing for seamless updates, embedding of images, videos, and hyperlinks, allowing for students to “comment” on the document.

7. Hyperlink to Resources:

This increases usability and reduces time spent searching for materials buried in the course by centralizing all necessary resources to complete the assignment in one spot.

8. Consistent Labeling of Key Terms:

Use consistent terminology. Avoid using different labels for the same concept, as this can be confusing, especially for non-experts and second-language speakers.

9. Provide Troubleshooting Tips:

Include a separate document with common issues and their solutions, linked from the main instructions. Invite students to help curate this FAQ.

10. Seek Feedback:

Have someone unfamiliar with the assignment go through the instructions or use a generative AI tool to identify areas for improvement in usability and understanding.


Examples of Tasks Instructions
Weak Task Instructions:
Assignment: Write a Literary Analysis Essay on a Novel of Your Choice.
Task Section: Read the novel and write an essay about it.
Explanation: This task section is too vague and lacks specificity. It doesn’t provide clear steps, structure, or resources, leaving students uncertain about what is expected.

Strong Task Instructions:
Assignment: Write a Literary Analysis Essay on a Novel of Your Choice.
Task:

Choose a Novel:


Select a novel from the provided list in the course’s Week 2 folder. Ensure your choice is approved by [date].

2. Read the Novel:

Read the entire novel. Take notes on key themes, characters, and plot points as you read.

3. Develop a Thesis Statement:

Craft a clear, arguable thesis statement that reflects your analysis of the novel. Your thesis should focus on a specific theme, character, or literary device.

4. Gather Evidence:

Collect textual evidence (quotes, passages) from the novel to support your thesis. Make sure to note the page numbers for proper citation.

5. Outline Your Essay:

Create an outline that includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each body paragraph should focus on a single point that supports your thesis.

6. Write the First Draft:

Write the first draft of your essay, following the outline. Ensure your essay is 1500-2000 words in length and includes an introduction with a thesis statement, body paragraphs with evidence, and a conclusion.

7. Use MLA Formatting:

Format your essay according to MLA guidelines. Include in-text citations and a Works Cited page for the novel and any other sources you reference.

8. Peer Review:

Submit your draft to the peer review forum by [date]. Review at least two of your classmates' essays and provide constructive feedback.

9. Revise and Edit:

Based on peer feedback and your own review, revise and edit your essay. Focus on clarity, coherence, and correct grammar.

10. Submit the Final Essay:

Submit your final essay via the course’s online portal by [date]. Ensure you attach your draft with peer review comments.

Resources:

Refer to the “Literary Analysis Guide” available in the Resources folder for detailed instructions on developing a thesis and gathering evidence.
Use the “MLA Formatting Guide” linked [here] for help with citations and formatting.

Submission Checklist:

Thesis statement
Evidence from the text with citations
Outline
Draft with peer comments
Final essay in MLA format

Explanation: 
This task section is detailed and structured, providing clear, step-by-step instructions and necessary resources. It specifies what students need to do at each stage, the tools they should use, and deadlines, ensuring that students understand how to proceed and complete the assignment effectively.

Resources: 
Note: This is article 3 of a 5-part series on Transparent Assignments.

Quick Guide to Transparent Assignments (CTLI:MSU)

***This is part of a series of articles compiling useful resources and information for new graduate students. Some of the information in this series will be relevant for anybody new to MSU, including undergraduates, postdocs, faculty and staff. The topical areas range from settling into East Lansing and Michigan, getting to know which services can be found on campus to administrative steps and information needed throughout a graduate program at MSU. For the full series, see this playlist dedicated to (international) graduate students.***
 
Libraries
The biggest library on campus is the Main Library, located on West Circle Drive near Beaumont Tower, though there are a few other specialised libraries, e.g. the Schaefer Law Library or the Gast Business Library at other locations.
The main library offers many services besides being a space for studying and finding books. For example, there are the Digital Scholarship Lab (to explore new technology for use in research and teaching, e.g. VR or a 360-degree visualization room) and the Hollander MakeCentral Service Desk (for printing, plotting, publishing and even passport (photos) services).
If you can’t find a book at the MSU Library, there is a service called the Interlibrary Loan Service through which you can access books/ resources at other libraries.
The library also offers workshops, e.g. an introduction to the MSU Library Services, using different citation software and data/ content management.
There is a 24/7 Support Line for general library questions (and D2L support). Call (800)500-1554. Or “Ask A Librarian” using this link: https://www.lib.msu.edu/contact/askalib/
Skill Building
There are a range of units on campus dedicated to helping you develop skills.
Writing
The Writing Center provides one-on-one and group writing consultations and writing groups (“write-ins”) for graduate students and faculty. They also offer workshops including those on “Navigating the Master’s degree/ PhD” and incorporate issues like time management and writing strategies. They are available to help you with any type of writing project you may have, academic or not.
“Write-Ins” are offered through different units besides the Writing Center, e.g. by the Graduate School and provide a dedicated time and space (as well as some support if needed) to make progress on any of your writing projects – from class work to dissertation chapters.
Workshops
A myriad of workshops is offered throughout the semester.
Topics include anything from departmental/ research specific seminars to writing and time management strategies (as mentioned above) to improving mentor relationships to wellness/ mental health workshops (see the Health article in this playlist for more information). The organizing units differ depending on the topic area. A good starting point is the Graduate School’s events calendar.
Statistics
Besides course offerings to learn about statistical methods, there are a few resources available to help you with your statistical skills and projects.
The Center for Statistical Training and Consulting provides statistical support for your research projects (they won’t do it FOR you but they will help you figure it out!) and teaches workshops on statistical methods.
Check with your College if they have a dedicated statistical support unit. For example, the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has a Statistical Consulting Center.
Want to improve your statistics, data science and programming skills in R? Have a look at what the R-Ladies East Lansing are up to these days. There may be a workshop just around the corner.
English Language
The English Language Center at MSU is a good place to improve your general English skills, learn about English for the classroom, i.e. if you are teaching, and to get support for your writing projects if English is your second language.
A note on skill building and other workshops…
I know we all get a lot of e-mails, but it is worth at least scanning each one because a lot of the workshops, seminars and service that MSU has to offer are advertised that way. They might provide that motivation or accountability to get you started on your next dissertation chapter.
 
Other support resources
Legal Support
MSU offers some free legal support for students. Check out this website for their services.
Family Resources/ Support
The Student Parent Resource Center offers support and resources for students with children.
Work Life Office
The Work Life Office is a one-stop destination for your needs regarding work life fit, including career transitions, community connection, workplace assistance and family care among others. Though their target group at MSU is faculty and staff, as an employee of MSU (TA or RA) you are more than welcome to use their services.
 
Sports and Wellness
Gyms
MSU has 3 gym buildings: IM West, IM Circle and IM East. Traditional gyms with workout machines are found at IM East and West. All buildings also have spaces for different types of sports, e.g. basketball, soccer, squash, tennis, gymnastics, etc. There are swimming pools at IM West and IM Circle which you can use for free. However, you will have to register your student ID online in order to access the building/ locker room (at IM Circle).
Too cold for running outside in the winter? Make use of the free running track in IM East (above the basketball court). You don’t need a gym membership to use this, just a valid student ID to get into the building.
Gym memberships are organized through Recreational Sports and Fitness. There are also a variety of group exercise (fitness classes) options available, both in-person and through an online platform called Fitness-on-Demand. Since a fee is automatically collected each semester, all you need to do is activiate your StudentID card on their website and your ready to work out.
You can also sail (and paddle board and kayak) at MSU! The MSU Sailing Center on Lake Lansing is your address for water-based sports.
Other Fitness options
Health4You offers fitness and wellness options throughout the year, including a lunchtime fitness series (Yoga, Pilates, TaiChi, etc). Make sure to look at their calendar of scheduled events and workshops.
A fan of shooting sports? Check out MSU’s Demmer Center that offers indoor and outdoor shooting ranges and classes for firearms and archery practice.
Want to get on the ice? No problem, you can ice skate at Munn Ice Arena.
Sports teams
Want to join a sports team? There are different avenues for that at MSU.
Club Sports are Registered Student Organizations and compete regionally and nationally.
Intramural Sports offer the opportunity to participate both competitively and recreationally in your favorite sport. There is a set list of sports types and you can join or create your own team to participate in campus competitions.
Spartan Fit
The Spartan Fit program aims to support you in your fitness and wellness journey. They offer assessments and programs to help you achieve your goals, including using exercise as medicine.
Watching sports
College Sports are a big deal in the US - think football, baseball, basketball or ice hockey for example. MSU is no exception, with Sparty being our mascot and helping us cheer “Go green, Go white!”. As part of the MSU community, especially as students, you get reduced rate tickets to the student sections for football, men’s basketball and hockey. The other sport events are free to attend. Check out the MSU Athletics website to purchase tickets. Also note that COGS sometimes has special deals for graduate students.
 
Food on Campus
There are many options to eat on campus – from the little Sparty’s stores where you can buy snacks to full dining halls with several different food options, you’re sure to find what satisfies your appetite. Your go-to website for anything food related on campus is Eat@State.
Coffee and Snacks
Sparty’s are little campus stores that usually offer filter coffee and snacks, including packaged sandwiches and in some instances even warm foods like soup or sausages. They are located all over campus. There is also a Sparty’s Market – a small grocery store at 1855 Place.
There are a few Starbucks on campus (1855 Place and main library) and a Panera Bread in the Edward J. Minskoff Pavilion (Business College). Both offer a variety of coffee specialties as well as sweet and savory foods.
Cafeterias and Dining Halls
Look at Eat@State for a full overview of dining halls/ cafeterias and available meal plans (you can pay for a whole semester or a set number of meals in advance, but you can also pay for a single meal when you enter the dining hall). I just want to mention a few highlights here.
Brody Square at Brody Hall is probably the biggest one, offering a variety of cuisines from stir fries to pizza to (vegetarian) burgers and salads.
The Edge at Akers Hall is another big dining hall offering a great variety of cuisines and has its own Tandoori oven.
Thrive at Owen Hall is a recent addition and focused on providing allergen-free food.
Dairy Store
The Dairy Store is an MSU business and produces ice cream and cheese from our own cows! You can buy packaged cheese, grilled cheese sandwiches, soup (changes daily) and delicious ice cream. It has two locations, one inside the MSU Union building and one in Anthony Hall (entrance on Farm Lane). In the summer month, they usually also have an ice cream food truck outside.
MSU Student Food Bank
If you need some support in procuring sufficient food for you (and your family), please make use of the MSU Student Food Bank. It is a volunteer-based organization on campus providing free foods and related items, helping you to cut your food bill down to half. Please make sure you are eligible and bring your student ID.
Social Life
There are many different ways to socialize and make friends on campus. Here are just a few formally organized ways.
OISS hosts weekly coffee hours, usually on Fridays. Meet and mingle with fellow international students. OISS also sometimes organizes sightseeing trips. Keep an eye on the e-mails they send.
The Council of Graduate Students (COGS) puts on social events like tailgates (a type of get-together with lawn games before a big football game), trivia nights and free dinners for graduate students.
There are a lot of different Registered Student Organizations (RSO’s) that bring together groups of students with similar interests, anything from cultures to sports.
Your department will probably have a Graduate Student Organization that might put on events or gatherings. They are a good way to connect with people and get involved in your department.
Looking for volunteering opportunities? One way to start might be to sign up to the volunteering listserv of the City of East Lansing. You can check out opportunities and sign up here.

This week, we are featuring Alexis Black, Assistant Professor in the Department of Theatre.  Alexis 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 Alexis’ 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? 
Inspiration!
What does this word/quality look like in your practice? Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so, how?
I love inspiring theatre students and instilling confidence by finding their sense of play, and I love empowering individuals to use their unique voices to share whatever inspires them. I love finding new practices through my research and creative activities, and bringing these practices to the classroom to re-inspire these artists who are the future of our profession. I believe learning and growing are an ongoing process that includes always taking in what is around us—which is literally what it is to “inspire”— to breathe in.  As students, teachers and artists we must be taking in and absorbing as much as we can, and be truly present to how each new inspiration changes us and our art. What each student does with each moment of inspiration is unique, and that individuality and creativity in turn inspires me right back! 
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 work in the Theatre Department at Michigan State University with our talented and driven cohort of MFA-candidate Artist-Educators, and our amazing undergraduate theatre students. I am extremely proud to work alongside so many collaborative, compassionate and innovative artists, students and educators.  
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?
I have found the understandable rise of anxiety and depression a challenge for students to pair with often emotionally vulnerable work in the theatrical classroom. I have experienced more success in supporting students in this area due to focus on self-care and closure practices I have gained through professional trainings and research, and incorporating more playful, creative ways into the work has been beneficial as well. I discovered that telling the story of an emotion through physical movements (rather than creating a psychological connection) can be incredibly freeing for students in relation to mental and emotional health. Our bodies are truly instruments for storytelling in this profession; Incorporating powerful ways to keep our instruments confidently and safely “tuned,” and finding skills to use our instruments both fully and with care, can help to nurture the resilient and empowered actors of tomorrow.  
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
I practice mindful communicative practices that encourage presence, active listening and support of individuality, such as conversations about boundaries before physical touch, check-ins, ensemble-building exercises, discussions on the relationship between comfort and growth as an artist, and projects that encourage empathy through collaborative creation. I find continuing to work professionally artist and remaining a student myself through ongoing professional trainings in my area of expertise to lead to many of my successes as an educator—immersing myself in contemporary practices and productions keeps a connection for my students to the theatre of today and tomorrow.  I also find an intentional emphasis on ownership over their work and their process as artists to be a successful way to hand off the reigns on their work—I am an introductory guide, but they must forge their own path.  If they can leave the classroom with a toolkit they can both use and individualize, I feel I have been a successful educator.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
In Fall 2022 I will be teaching the graduate MFA students about extreme physical storytelling, including staged violence and staged intimacy. It’s vital to foster consent-forward and trauma-informed educators and artists to join the workforce in the theatre industry, and especially at the graduate level in the department of theatre as our MFA students are training both as artists and educators. 


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 an effort to help you understand which of the free grading and assessment tools offered by MSU IT you may wish to try, we've put together a brief feature comparison table that allows you to see, at a glance, what features exist in what tools.
If you'd like a consultation on selecting the right assessment tool, contact the MSU IT Service desk at (517)432-6200 or by e-mailing ithelp@msu.edu. They will set you up with a consultation with our Assessment Services office (formerly known as the Scoring Office). 



Feature
Crowdmark
Gradescope
Digital Desk
Notes


Electronic assessment grading
x
 
x
 


Paper grading assessment
x
x
x
 


Commenting/Annotation
x
 
x
 


Collaborative grading
x
not clear
not yet
 


Analytics
x
x
x
 


Brightspace integration
x
x
working on that now
 


Scan exams
x
x
x
Crowdmark calls it "exam matching"


Create exams
x
x
x
 


Upload exams
x
x
x
 


Rubrics
x
x
 
 


Autograding
x
x
x
 


Academic integrity
x
 
x
 


Proctoring built-in
x
 
x
Digital Desk allows for 3rd party proctoring


AI assisted grading
x
x
not yet