We found 553 results that contain "classroom engagement"
Posted on: #iteachmsu
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Application of Studio Culture in University Schools of Music
A central part of the student experience as a music major in a school or department of music is the studio. Studios are essentially a home-away-from-home for students and is where some of the most fruitful learning and social opportunities can occur. One could equate studios with working in a research lab in the sciences. With this in mind, the culture and atmosphere of studios and how studios interact with others are central to the culture and effectiveness of the larger school or department.
Music students often enter higher education with a fairly high standard of what classroom culture looks like. Ensemble music courses that music students likely took in high school, such as band, choir, and orchestra, foster a high-level classroom culture and community by the nature of the activity. This creates an expectation that music education, at any level and in any situation, will have that same sort of cooperation and community. The ensemble nature of large group instruction fosters a strong sense of shared identity and a culture that defines everything from day-to-day classroom routine to learner outcomes. University music programs (departments, schools, colleges, or conservatories) are structured in order to teach, perform, and experience music in a variety of ways. While the large ensemble (band, choir, orchestra, opera, etc) is a significant part of the school – and perhaps the most visible to the general public – learning also occurs in traditional classrooms and labs where foundational knowledge such as music theory, music history, music technology, music education, and aural skills are taught.
The core of a college or university music program or conservatory, however, is the studio. Each area of performance is organized by a studio and led by an applied teacher. At Michigan State, for example, within the College of Music there are areas of study for composition, conducting, jazz, voice, brass, woodwinds, percussion, strings and piano. Each of these areas consist of studios led by artist-teachers. The woodwind area, for example, consists of studios for flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone and an applied teacher for each of those studios. For many students, especially graduate students, they elect to come to certain school to specifically study with that applied teacher. While students participate in ensembles, take classroom courses, and are educated through several avenues, the studio teacher is their major professor and advisor, and typically has the most contact time and influence on that student.
Studios in schools of music, however, can sometimes seem isolated from each other. This can occur for several valid reasons and not the fault of any one student or faculty member. Unlike large ensembles, where cooperation and a mutual understanding of each member’s role is an essential aspect to music-making, studios often focus on specific pedagogical goals based around the expertise of the individual teacher. And studios can have very specific ideas of what they want their “sound” or approach to playing to be. This can sometimes lead to issues in understanding the priorities of other studios and creates a divide in the school where philosophical conflicts may arise between teaching goals and strategies. This conflict is not the fault of the teachers, and usually is not caused or perpetuated by faculty. Faculty typically understand this dynamic because they have a vision of what they want their studio to be and each understands that other faculty may have different goals. While it is possible they may disagree with certain choices in other studios, each teacher comes to the job with their own unique set of skills and priorities. As long as students are choosing to come to the school, being successful within the school, and being productive musicians contributing to the field after school – the teacher’s work is often judged as a success.
Sometimes the breakdown occurs with how students perceive the work of other studios. Learning does not occur in a vacuum. While the studio is often the hub of the learning, much of a student’s time is spent in performing ensembles. It is in cooperative spaces like this that the breakdown can come to a head. Teachers have different priorities and students have different goals. When one person’s goal rubs against another’s goal, conflict can arise. Each instrument has inherent attributes that make them unique and different from others – and therefore difficult to compare. Oboist have to learn to make reeds, tubists may also need to learn euphonium, violinists sometimes also learn viola, trombonists may need to learn to read tenor clef, and saxophonists are always stretching their skills with extended performance techniques. Every instrument has its own challenge, and the fundamental knowledge necessary before moving onto the next step of learning varies considerably between all of them. Furthermore, every student focuses their study in order to be competitive for differing jobs following graduation. Students seeking college teaching positions may need to study theory pedagogy in addition to learning to play their instrument well, while other students may focus on obtaining an orchestral playing position – which has very specific skills you need to perfect. These are facts often overlooked in the frustration that occurs when goals do not align in rehearsal. Understanding where students are coming from and the different paths and pacing each needs to take to meet different goals is something that my colleague and fellow DMA student Evan Harger calls “vocational empathy.” These unique and varied paths sometimes create a flawed perception of what really is progress.
Large ensembles are led by conductors who guide the direction, philosophy, and culture of the learning environment. Conductors navigate through the web of individual philosophies of each studio and performer to create an ensemble experience that proves to be a successful composite of a variety of pedagogical approaches. In addition to large ensembles, another significant performance opportunity for students are chamber ensembles. In these small groups, students have more autonomy and sometimes conflict can arise between contrasting ideologies and rehearsal priorities. It is not uncommon in chamber ensembles, where there is little faculty input and the music-making is purely student-led, to have differing approaches to the ensemble experience. Everything from rehearsal strategies and what components of the music needs addressing to ideas about performance practice and interpretation can differ and pose potential conflicts. While these are issues and topics to consider in any ensemble opportunity, even in the professional ranks, academia sometimes creates environments where students develop tunnel vision to their own learning biases and objectives.
In order to create healthier ensemble experiences, understanding and developing positive studio culture allows students to not only feel comfortable and foster deeper learning within their studios but also allows for more meaningful cross-studio learning. By allowing students the opportunity to understand the focus and approaches of other studios, students are able to more easily collaborate with those who might approach the same musical issue from an entirely different angle. This awareness of multiple ways to view the same idea, or even being presented with new ideas entirely, creates an environment where cooperation happens more deeply, naturally, and genuinely. This allows for the development of stronger ensemble skills in rehearsal and contributes to more authentic performances. Additionally, this awareness of why certain studios focus on particular aspects allows for students to be better colleagues in future professional, academic, and business environments. We approach conflict and problem-solving through a lens developed in rehearsal and through conversations in the studios. For future teachers and professors, we have a deeper toolbox of instructional strategies to pick from to use in our own future classrooms and studios. This shared knowledge combats the issue of tunnel-vision-learning that limits our capacity for performance as well as the capacity for understanding, cooperation, and growth.
An awareness of vocational empathy creates an avenue where students can share what they value in their studios and as individual learners in order to better understand the values of others. To be a successful 21st century musician, a wide variety of skills are necessary. But what we focus on, the degree to which one does, and the end goal of that study is something that cannot be compared. Richard Floyd, a noted music educator and State Director of Music Emeritus for Texas, calls this space where students are engaged and seeking to learn in a variety of ways a “happy workshop.” And within this workshop, there are a lot of people doing a lot of different jobs in a lot of different ways that all work together to teach and learn from each other. This healthy culture knocks on the door of Paulo Freire’s view that teaching and learning are interchangeable and that the student and teacher do both.
Through working with the Graduate School as a Leadership Development Fellow, I was able to dig into what defines a successful studio culture and how we can best connect these cultures to foster a positive and productive learning environment within the entire College of Music. This past year served as essentially a fact-finding year: defining, through research and student voice, what a productive studio culture looks like and where conflict can arise and how to work through conflict. Higher education music rarely defines this awareness and implications of how studio culture effects an entire school. By and large, music studios look very similar today as they did twenty-five or even fifty years ago. Generally, many teachers still teach the way they were taught. MSU is fortunate that we have many innovative and progressive educators, but the notion of still teaching as we were taught is all too common in academia.
To define best practices in studio culture and to compare the music field to other fields, I looked for defining qualities in classroom culture in higher education. Some of the most relevant ideas of studio culture came from architecture. The American Institute of Architecture Students In-StudioBlog travels to architecture studios across the country, asking many of the same questions that we are asking in the College of Music.
Describe your studio culture.
Give one tip that helped you succeed in studio.
What motivated you to work hard in studio?
What aspect of your studio experience do you think will help you get a job?
What can professors do to create a helpful and supportive studio culture?
What should a high school student understand about studio at my university?
What can the College do to help improve your studio experience?
What would be your ideal studio care package?
I love my studio because….
Schools of architecture have a fairly well-thought out approach to what culture looks like in their studios. The Princeton University School of Architecture has a detailed “Studio Culture Policy” which aligns well with similar concerns in a music studio. From speaking with students in the College of Music, topics raised in these architecture policies are similar to concerns shared here – and I would venture to say any classroom can benefit from tough conversations about culture and productive, cooperative learning environments. These same conversations can apply to other close learning environments in the arts such as dance studios and theater programs; but they are equally relevant and impactful in scientific research labs.
Through the Graduate School’s Leadership Development Fellowship, we’ve created a forum where music students can share what makes their studio’s unique, what brought them to study at MSU, and also concerns or suggestions they have to improve our College. In an open environment where all can share ideas, we not only create a space where cooperation and understanding are built, but also allow ourselves to deepen our own toolbox that can be used in the professional world and in future classrooms and studios. An initial meeting of this forum quickly veered away from talking about our own studios and personal interests, but to larger questions in the discipline of music: ideas about music and its role in global citizenship, entrepreneurial skills in the performing arts, repertoire selection and variety, and diversity and representation. These are important topics beyond the scope of studio culture, but agreement exists that each studio can make a significant difference in these areas. Studios can be the start of grassroot change in tackling bigger issues in music and music education. When we come together to talk about these significant issues and how each studio confronts them, we are making positive change – not only in our studios and the College of Music – but in music and music-making at large. This year we just barely scratched the surface of the impact that we can have on understanding and developing the culture in our studios. From the initial research and student conversations, it is apparent that these ideas make a meaningful difference on our learning environment in real ways that will have impacts far beyond the walls of the College of Music.
Music students often enter higher education with a fairly high standard of what classroom culture looks like. Ensemble music courses that music students likely took in high school, such as band, choir, and orchestra, foster a high-level classroom culture and community by the nature of the activity. This creates an expectation that music education, at any level and in any situation, will have that same sort of cooperation and community. The ensemble nature of large group instruction fosters a strong sense of shared identity and a culture that defines everything from day-to-day classroom routine to learner outcomes. University music programs (departments, schools, colleges, or conservatories) are structured in order to teach, perform, and experience music in a variety of ways. While the large ensemble (band, choir, orchestra, opera, etc) is a significant part of the school – and perhaps the most visible to the general public – learning also occurs in traditional classrooms and labs where foundational knowledge such as music theory, music history, music technology, music education, and aural skills are taught.
The core of a college or university music program or conservatory, however, is the studio. Each area of performance is organized by a studio and led by an applied teacher. At Michigan State, for example, within the College of Music there are areas of study for composition, conducting, jazz, voice, brass, woodwinds, percussion, strings and piano. Each of these areas consist of studios led by artist-teachers. The woodwind area, for example, consists of studios for flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone and an applied teacher for each of those studios. For many students, especially graduate students, they elect to come to certain school to specifically study with that applied teacher. While students participate in ensembles, take classroom courses, and are educated through several avenues, the studio teacher is their major professor and advisor, and typically has the most contact time and influence on that student.
Studios in schools of music, however, can sometimes seem isolated from each other. This can occur for several valid reasons and not the fault of any one student or faculty member. Unlike large ensembles, where cooperation and a mutual understanding of each member’s role is an essential aspect to music-making, studios often focus on specific pedagogical goals based around the expertise of the individual teacher. And studios can have very specific ideas of what they want their “sound” or approach to playing to be. This can sometimes lead to issues in understanding the priorities of other studios and creates a divide in the school where philosophical conflicts may arise between teaching goals and strategies. This conflict is not the fault of the teachers, and usually is not caused or perpetuated by faculty. Faculty typically understand this dynamic because they have a vision of what they want their studio to be and each understands that other faculty may have different goals. While it is possible they may disagree with certain choices in other studios, each teacher comes to the job with their own unique set of skills and priorities. As long as students are choosing to come to the school, being successful within the school, and being productive musicians contributing to the field after school – the teacher’s work is often judged as a success.
Sometimes the breakdown occurs with how students perceive the work of other studios. Learning does not occur in a vacuum. While the studio is often the hub of the learning, much of a student’s time is spent in performing ensembles. It is in cooperative spaces like this that the breakdown can come to a head. Teachers have different priorities and students have different goals. When one person’s goal rubs against another’s goal, conflict can arise. Each instrument has inherent attributes that make them unique and different from others – and therefore difficult to compare. Oboist have to learn to make reeds, tubists may also need to learn euphonium, violinists sometimes also learn viola, trombonists may need to learn to read tenor clef, and saxophonists are always stretching their skills with extended performance techniques. Every instrument has its own challenge, and the fundamental knowledge necessary before moving onto the next step of learning varies considerably between all of them. Furthermore, every student focuses their study in order to be competitive for differing jobs following graduation. Students seeking college teaching positions may need to study theory pedagogy in addition to learning to play their instrument well, while other students may focus on obtaining an orchestral playing position – which has very specific skills you need to perfect. These are facts often overlooked in the frustration that occurs when goals do not align in rehearsal. Understanding where students are coming from and the different paths and pacing each needs to take to meet different goals is something that my colleague and fellow DMA student Evan Harger calls “vocational empathy.” These unique and varied paths sometimes create a flawed perception of what really is progress.
Large ensembles are led by conductors who guide the direction, philosophy, and culture of the learning environment. Conductors navigate through the web of individual philosophies of each studio and performer to create an ensemble experience that proves to be a successful composite of a variety of pedagogical approaches. In addition to large ensembles, another significant performance opportunity for students are chamber ensembles. In these small groups, students have more autonomy and sometimes conflict can arise between contrasting ideologies and rehearsal priorities. It is not uncommon in chamber ensembles, where there is little faculty input and the music-making is purely student-led, to have differing approaches to the ensemble experience. Everything from rehearsal strategies and what components of the music needs addressing to ideas about performance practice and interpretation can differ and pose potential conflicts. While these are issues and topics to consider in any ensemble opportunity, even in the professional ranks, academia sometimes creates environments where students develop tunnel vision to their own learning biases and objectives.
In order to create healthier ensemble experiences, understanding and developing positive studio culture allows students to not only feel comfortable and foster deeper learning within their studios but also allows for more meaningful cross-studio learning. By allowing students the opportunity to understand the focus and approaches of other studios, students are able to more easily collaborate with those who might approach the same musical issue from an entirely different angle. This awareness of multiple ways to view the same idea, or even being presented with new ideas entirely, creates an environment where cooperation happens more deeply, naturally, and genuinely. This allows for the development of stronger ensemble skills in rehearsal and contributes to more authentic performances. Additionally, this awareness of why certain studios focus on particular aspects allows for students to be better colleagues in future professional, academic, and business environments. We approach conflict and problem-solving through a lens developed in rehearsal and through conversations in the studios. For future teachers and professors, we have a deeper toolbox of instructional strategies to pick from to use in our own future classrooms and studios. This shared knowledge combats the issue of tunnel-vision-learning that limits our capacity for performance as well as the capacity for understanding, cooperation, and growth.
An awareness of vocational empathy creates an avenue where students can share what they value in their studios and as individual learners in order to better understand the values of others. To be a successful 21st century musician, a wide variety of skills are necessary. But what we focus on, the degree to which one does, and the end goal of that study is something that cannot be compared. Richard Floyd, a noted music educator and State Director of Music Emeritus for Texas, calls this space where students are engaged and seeking to learn in a variety of ways a “happy workshop.” And within this workshop, there are a lot of people doing a lot of different jobs in a lot of different ways that all work together to teach and learn from each other. This healthy culture knocks on the door of Paulo Freire’s view that teaching and learning are interchangeable and that the student and teacher do both.
Through working with the Graduate School as a Leadership Development Fellow, I was able to dig into what defines a successful studio culture and how we can best connect these cultures to foster a positive and productive learning environment within the entire College of Music. This past year served as essentially a fact-finding year: defining, through research and student voice, what a productive studio culture looks like and where conflict can arise and how to work through conflict. Higher education music rarely defines this awareness and implications of how studio culture effects an entire school. By and large, music studios look very similar today as they did twenty-five or even fifty years ago. Generally, many teachers still teach the way they were taught. MSU is fortunate that we have many innovative and progressive educators, but the notion of still teaching as we were taught is all too common in academia.
To define best practices in studio culture and to compare the music field to other fields, I looked for defining qualities in classroom culture in higher education. Some of the most relevant ideas of studio culture came from architecture. The American Institute of Architecture Students In-StudioBlog travels to architecture studios across the country, asking many of the same questions that we are asking in the College of Music.
Describe your studio culture.
Give one tip that helped you succeed in studio.
What motivated you to work hard in studio?
What aspect of your studio experience do you think will help you get a job?
What can professors do to create a helpful and supportive studio culture?
What should a high school student understand about studio at my university?
What can the College do to help improve your studio experience?
What would be your ideal studio care package?
I love my studio because….
Schools of architecture have a fairly well-thought out approach to what culture looks like in their studios. The Princeton University School of Architecture has a detailed “Studio Culture Policy” which aligns well with similar concerns in a music studio. From speaking with students in the College of Music, topics raised in these architecture policies are similar to concerns shared here – and I would venture to say any classroom can benefit from tough conversations about culture and productive, cooperative learning environments. These same conversations can apply to other close learning environments in the arts such as dance studios and theater programs; but they are equally relevant and impactful in scientific research labs.
Through the Graduate School’s Leadership Development Fellowship, we’ve created a forum where music students can share what makes their studio’s unique, what brought them to study at MSU, and also concerns or suggestions they have to improve our College. In an open environment where all can share ideas, we not only create a space where cooperation and understanding are built, but also allow ourselves to deepen our own toolbox that can be used in the professional world and in future classrooms and studios. An initial meeting of this forum quickly veered away from talking about our own studios and personal interests, but to larger questions in the discipline of music: ideas about music and its role in global citizenship, entrepreneurial skills in the performing arts, repertoire selection and variety, and diversity and representation. These are important topics beyond the scope of studio culture, but agreement exists that each studio can make a significant difference in these areas. Studios can be the start of grassroot change in tackling bigger issues in music and music education. When we come together to talk about these significant issues and how each studio confronts them, we are making positive change – not only in our studios and the College of Music – but in music and music-making at large. This year we just barely scratched the surface of the impact that we can have on understanding and developing the culture in our studios. From the initial research and student conversations, it is apparent that these ideas make a meaningful difference on our learning environment in real ways that will have impacts far beyond the walls of the College of Music.
Authored by:
Hunter Kopczynski
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Application of Studio Culture in University Schools of Music
A central part of the student experience as a music major in a scho...
Authored by:
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Guidelines for Online Camera Policies
MSU does not currently have a university-wide policy on cameras/videos (e.g. web cameras) for online learning. Much like attendance/participation policies, camera/video policy statements will be determined by individual instructors, departments, and programs. Instructors are responsible for communicating the individual course policy to students.
The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on camera use in your course. Please adjust the guidance to fit your particular course context, but remember you must make allowances for certain circumstances that might be tied to connectivity issues or environmental circumstances. It is key that your desire for video-on participation be built on a foundation of inclusion and accessibility, pedagogy and design. The information below is shared as key considerations for developing your course policy. If you have specific questions about writing your course policy, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI).
Benefits and Challenges of Webcams
The use of webcams in live online meetings can add to the educational experience in many ways. Some of these include:
Students working in groups
Showing physical evidence or materials
Proof of attendance
Classes that focus on communication skills, performance, or physical movement
Students may wish to keep their webcams off because:
Their internet speed cannot support the use of streaming video. Bandwidth problems are real for many students regardless of their location
They may have privacy concerns (e.g. roommates, children, or other family members in the background)
Students may wish to keep their webcams off because leaving them on may reveal their exact geographical location or other unique identifying information to the rest of the class
They may have a visually busy environment or otherwise distracting background that could detract from others’ ability to attend to class content
They may have personal or environmental concerns that make sharing their likeness or their personal spaces problematic. Not all computers can replace backgrounds with virtual backdrops that would alleviate these concerns
They may have a disability where the video feed will decrease their success in the course
Students may not have a webcam on their computer. This item has not been a component of the university required laptop/desktop description.
Educators should be aware of the privacy, hardware, software, disability, and equity concerns and only require the use of webcams or video feeds when the educational value of requiring video supersedes those concerns. In such instances, there may still be students whose specific disabilities preclude the use of webcams. The Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities will work to assist students who have gone through the proper accommodation request process and for whom the use of webcams is not possible. Instructors should also keep in mind that the accommodations process can be a time consuming and expensive one; and not all students may be able to engage in it. In addition, disabilities, temporary or otherwise, can manifest at any time. These factors should be considered when you determining the policy for your course.
Best Practices for Developing Video Conference Policies
In general, online learners experience “Zoom fatigue” and extra cognitive loads when it comes to learning (McCabe, et al., 2023 & Fauville, et al, 2021) For reasons of equity and respect for privacy, students generally should not be required to turn on their webcams for the full duration of all online class sessions. The literature around camera-on requirements promoting learning is scarce. Waluyo and Wangdi (2023) found that classroom dynamics, classroom exhaustion and participation, physical appearance and background, unrelated physical activity, distracting behaviors, and technical issues all played a role in student-camera behavior. It is also important to note that there are many ways to - through pedagogical design - effectively build a sense of belonging and classroom engagement. If you’re interested in more on classroom engagement strategies, you can schedule a consultation with a member of the CTLI team or check out CTLI’s upcoming events!
Faculty might have pedagogical reasons to ask students to turn on cameras when teaching online, but educators should consider whether asking students to turn on their webcam is necessary to accomplish a learning objective and should explain to students the educational reason for their request, allowing the student to make their own, informed decision to do so based on their circumstances and without incurring penalties of any kind.
In short, the default recommended practice would be to allow students to keep their webcams off, with certain learning goals and instructional practices making it justifiable for the educator to ask students to turn on their webcams if they are willing and able, after receiving an explanation for the request. The only exception to this choice would be during assessment activities that require* the use of a webcam.
*Any webcam mandates need to be clearly communicated in advance of the first-expected use to allow students adequate time to plan and prepare their environment.
Relevant MSU Documents and Policies
Restrictions on instructors requiring students to turn on their webcams is supported by MSU’s Student Rights and Responsibilities, Article 2.II.B 8 (The student has a right to protection against improper disclosure of his/her education records and personal information such as values, beliefs, organizational affiliations, and health) and Article 2.III.B 10 (The student and the faculty share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships based on mutual trust and civility).
In light of the Family Educational Records Protections Act (FERPA), MSU’s Office of General Council recently put together this guide addressing how to properly deal with files of recorded synchronous sessions containing video feed. References & Further Readings
McCabe, J. A., Banasik, C. S., Jackson, M. G., Postlethwait, E. M., Steitz, A., & Wenzel, A. R. (2023). Exploring perceptions of cognitive load and mental fatigue in pandemic-era zoom classes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000347
Fauville, Geraldine and Luo, Mufan and Queiroz, Anna C. M. and Bailenson, Jeremy N. and Hancock, Jeff, Nonverbal Mechanisms Predict Zoom Fatigue and Explain Why Women Experience Higher Levels than Men (April 5, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3820035 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3820035
Waluyo, Budi & Wangdi, Thinley. (2023). Reasons and Impacts of Camera On and Off during Synchronous Online English Teaching and Learning: Insights from Thai EFL Context. CALL-EJ. 24. 179-198. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367384842_Reasons_and_Impacts_of_Camera_On_and_Off_during_Synchronous_Online_English_Teaching_and_Learning_Insights_from_Thai_EFL_Context
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse481p/23sp/readings/W6S2/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions-VigneshRamachandran.pdf
Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash
The following resource is provided to assist you in developing coherent policies on camera use in your course. Please adjust the guidance to fit your particular course context, but remember you must make allowances for certain circumstances that might be tied to connectivity issues or environmental circumstances. It is key that your desire for video-on participation be built on a foundation of inclusion and accessibility, pedagogy and design. The information below is shared as key considerations for developing your course policy. If you have specific questions about writing your course policy, please reach out to the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI).
Benefits and Challenges of Webcams
The use of webcams in live online meetings can add to the educational experience in many ways. Some of these include:
Students working in groups
Showing physical evidence or materials
Proof of attendance
Classes that focus on communication skills, performance, or physical movement
Students may wish to keep their webcams off because:
Their internet speed cannot support the use of streaming video. Bandwidth problems are real for many students regardless of their location
They may have privacy concerns (e.g. roommates, children, or other family members in the background)
Students may wish to keep their webcams off because leaving them on may reveal their exact geographical location or other unique identifying information to the rest of the class
They may have a visually busy environment or otherwise distracting background that could detract from others’ ability to attend to class content
They may have personal or environmental concerns that make sharing their likeness or their personal spaces problematic. Not all computers can replace backgrounds with virtual backdrops that would alleviate these concerns
They may have a disability where the video feed will decrease their success in the course
Students may not have a webcam on their computer. This item has not been a component of the university required laptop/desktop description.
Educators should be aware of the privacy, hardware, software, disability, and equity concerns and only require the use of webcams or video feeds when the educational value of requiring video supersedes those concerns. In such instances, there may still be students whose specific disabilities preclude the use of webcams. The Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities will work to assist students who have gone through the proper accommodation request process and for whom the use of webcams is not possible. Instructors should also keep in mind that the accommodations process can be a time consuming and expensive one; and not all students may be able to engage in it. In addition, disabilities, temporary or otherwise, can manifest at any time. These factors should be considered when you determining the policy for your course.
Best Practices for Developing Video Conference Policies
In general, online learners experience “Zoom fatigue” and extra cognitive loads when it comes to learning (McCabe, et al., 2023 & Fauville, et al, 2021) For reasons of equity and respect for privacy, students generally should not be required to turn on their webcams for the full duration of all online class sessions. The literature around camera-on requirements promoting learning is scarce. Waluyo and Wangdi (2023) found that classroom dynamics, classroom exhaustion and participation, physical appearance and background, unrelated physical activity, distracting behaviors, and technical issues all played a role in student-camera behavior. It is also important to note that there are many ways to - through pedagogical design - effectively build a sense of belonging and classroom engagement. If you’re interested in more on classroom engagement strategies, you can schedule a consultation with a member of the CTLI team or check out CTLI’s upcoming events!
Faculty might have pedagogical reasons to ask students to turn on cameras when teaching online, but educators should consider whether asking students to turn on their webcam is necessary to accomplish a learning objective and should explain to students the educational reason for their request, allowing the student to make their own, informed decision to do so based on their circumstances and without incurring penalties of any kind.
In short, the default recommended practice would be to allow students to keep their webcams off, with certain learning goals and instructional practices making it justifiable for the educator to ask students to turn on their webcams if they are willing and able, after receiving an explanation for the request. The only exception to this choice would be during assessment activities that require* the use of a webcam.
*Any webcam mandates need to be clearly communicated in advance of the first-expected use to allow students adequate time to plan and prepare their environment.
Relevant MSU Documents and Policies
Restrictions on instructors requiring students to turn on their webcams is supported by MSU’s Student Rights and Responsibilities, Article 2.II.B 8 (The student has a right to protection against improper disclosure of his/her education records and personal information such as values, beliefs, organizational affiliations, and health) and Article 2.III.B 10 (The student and the faculty share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships based on mutual trust and civility).
In light of the Family Educational Records Protections Act (FERPA), MSU’s Office of General Council recently put together this guide addressing how to properly deal with files of recorded synchronous sessions containing video feed. References & Further Readings
McCabe, J. A., Banasik, C. S., Jackson, M. G., Postlethwait, E. M., Steitz, A., & Wenzel, A. R. (2023). Exploring perceptions of cognitive load and mental fatigue in pandemic-era zoom classes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000347
Fauville, Geraldine and Luo, Mufan and Queiroz, Anna C. M. and Bailenson, Jeremy N. and Hancock, Jeff, Nonverbal Mechanisms Predict Zoom Fatigue and Explain Why Women Experience Higher Levels than Men (April 5, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3820035 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3820035
Waluyo, Budi & Wangdi, Thinley. (2023). Reasons and Impacts of Camera On and Off during Synchronous Online English Teaching and Learning: Insights from Thai EFL Context. CALL-EJ. 24. 179-198. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367384842_Reasons_and_Impacts_of_Camera_On_and_Off_during_Synchronous_Online_English_Teaching_and_Learning_Insights_from_Thai_EFL_Context
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse481p/23sp/readings/W6S2/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions-VigneshRamachandran.pdf
Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash
Posted by:
Makena Neal
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Guidelines for Online Camera Policies
MSU does not currently have a university-wide policy on cameras/vid...
Posted by:
Wednesday, Aug 9, 2023
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
The Three “P’s” of Academic Integrity
Promote classroom discussions about integrity
Connect academic integrity to the professions
Reaffirm value of honest work
Encourage openness
Clarify terms and expectations
Prevent through assessment design
Consider and honor pledge
Create alternate assignments/tests/quizzes
Assign topics that require analysis not just facts
Establish classroom policy on collaboration
Protect the learning environment
Consistently enforce the university policy
Establish clear grading criteria
Allow reasonable time for assignment completion
Base course grade on multiple assessments
Responding to Academic Misconduct
Discuss the allegation of misconduct with the student
Allow the student to respond to the allegation
Outline the rationale for the penalty, as well as the penalty
Let them know about resources like the University Ombudsperson
Remember to…
Listen respectfully
Work on misperceptions and misunderstandings
Keep emotions in check
Maintain eye contact
Document the conversation
When in doubt…
Contact the Office of the University Ombudsperson at ombud@msu.edu or (517) 353-8830
Connect academic integrity to the professions
Reaffirm value of honest work
Encourage openness
Clarify terms and expectations
Prevent through assessment design
Consider and honor pledge
Create alternate assignments/tests/quizzes
Assign topics that require analysis not just facts
Establish classroom policy on collaboration
Protect the learning environment
Consistently enforce the university policy
Establish clear grading criteria
Allow reasonable time for assignment completion
Base course grade on multiple assessments
Responding to Academic Misconduct
Discuss the allegation of misconduct with the student
Allow the student to respond to the allegation
Outline the rationale for the penalty, as well as the penalty
Let them know about resources like the University Ombudsperson
Remember to…
Listen respectfully
Work on misperceptions and misunderstandings
Keep emotions in check
Maintain eye contact
Document the conversation
When in doubt…
Contact the Office of the University Ombudsperson at ombud@msu.edu or (517) 353-8830
Authored by:
Shannon Burton
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
The Three “P’s” of Academic Integrity
Promote classroom discussions about integrity
Connect academic in...
Connect academic in...
Authored by:
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Thursday, Jul 30, 2020
Posted on: #iteachmsu
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.” is one of the largest colloquialisms when it comes to career trajectory. In addition, a big part of attending higher education is to help propel student careers. While we may want to prepare students by just giving them the necessary knowledge for their future endeavors, we should also strive to take this time to help establish connections and reasonable paths forward for them as well.
Engagement/Participation:
Student engagement is defined by how actively and enthusiastically students are involved in the learning process during class. Meanwhile, participation refers to actual involvement of the students. So, it is possible for:
A student may participate and not be engaged,
Or a student to be engaged but not participate.
This is important to consider when defining your pedagogical approach to classroom engagement and participation, and how you define it within your class. If you plan to award student participation, or your class heavily relies on discussion and active student engagement, you may even want to provide these definitions in the syllabus.
However, you may not directly explain these ideas and instead focus on whether ask these questions of your syllabus:
Does your teaching style facilitate your views of participation/engagement?
Is your syllabus communicating whether you want students to participate?
Is the syllabus itself engaging for students?
Do your assessments reflect your goals for participation/engagement?
In what ways is your syllabus contributing to student participation and engagement?
Peer-to-peer Interaction
Students working together is crucial for learning and development. It helps students build necessary social skills, establish relationships between current/future colleagues, increases active participation and engagement and often increases student self-efficacy towards the course topic.
Therefore, it is encouraged that you construct course materials that facilitate peer-to-peer interactions and foster some sense of community within your classroom. As far as what to include in the syllabus, you should specify what types of activities you will hold that require peer-to-peer interactions, and what expectations you have of students during these interactions.
For example, the syllabus may contain:
A list of classroom rules that you or your class develops:
Developing them yourself lets you be in control of exactly what values you want accentuated in your class.
Developing them as a class can communicate that students have autonomy over their learning and increase classroom engagement.
Examples of peer-discussion techniques you use:
Whole Group Discussions:
Ask your class to consider a question/topic and facilitate a group discussion on the topic, allowing students to speak freely and challenge one another.
Think-Pair-Share:
Ask students to individually consider a question/topic, discuss it with a partner, then share their insights with the whole class.
Mingle-Pair-Share:
Similar to think-pair-share, except students can move freely about the class and have discussions with multiple students.
Discussion Groups:
Breaking students into smaller groups to hold discussions on a question/topic, which can then be brought into larger group discussions.
Jigsaw:
Break down a larger topic into smaller pieces and allow each group to focus on an individual piece to share out in a whole class discussion.
Collaborative Assignments:
Students work together in small groups to develop material specified by a rubric or find solutions to laid out problems.
Socratic Seminar:
This is an open discussion based on an assigned set of readings. Instead of generating a question or specific topic you want students to consider, just allow them to openly discuss the material and explore at their own pace.
There are numerous other ways you may facilitate peer-to-peer relationships and communication, but however you choose to do so, it is helpful to communicate that to students upfront and through the syllabus.
Instructor-Student Interaction:
Fair or not, how students reflect on course material, or a specific subject, largely depends on their (impression of)/ (relationship with) their teacher. For this reason, it’s important to have a positive relationship between an instructor and their student. The syllabus, again especially as a first impression, can help facilitate this relationship and help an instructor feel more approachable. For this reason, it’s important that your syllabus:
Sets a welcoming/positive tone:
Clearly communicate your enthusiasm for the course and the students participating.
Set expectations but don’t dictate them.
Include words with positive connotations
As an example, instead of describing student work as “acceptable” consider saying it is “valid” or “commendable”
Avoid negatives (such as “do not” or “unable to” as much as possible)
Encourages engagement:
You’ve explained what types of engagement you’re looking for, but now it is important to encourage that from students. To do so:
Give examples of your interactive content.
Engage in storytelling by sharing personal details you feel comfortable sharing.
Ask for and encourage student feedback.
Be authentic.
Promotes your own availability:
One of the leading reasons students don’t attend office hours is because they feel they are “awkward.” To break through this barrier, you might:
Explain the value office hours provide students:
Promote the benefits such as improved understanding and better test scores.
Highlight success stories
Offer flexible scheduling for office hours.
Consider Location/Modality:
Are you available via video or only in-person?
If in-person, where are you available to meet and how accessible is that to the students?
Set one-on-one meetings during the semester.
These can be informal and short to get students familiar with the process, or perhaps there is a specific purpose tied to the meeting.
Students who feel more comfortable with their instructor tend to perform significantly better in a course and have a stronger sense of confidence in their own ability. Fostering this relationship is one of the most crucial for the educator to create a positive classroom environment.
Provide Connections:
With the goal in mind that students attend college to increase career success, it is important to use our abilities and connections to help them achieve it. This will appear vastly different depending on the field of study, and possible career paths, but here are some forms this may take:
Connect students with other faculty: Perhaps another member of the department or institution you know has better connections that align with a student’s career aims, or areas of interest.
Have guest speakers: You can’t know everything, and having a guest speaker can help students gain exposure to the community around the topic they’re studying and form meaningful connections with them.
Utilize connections in the field: You more than likely studied this material at your own university/had a job in the field. Consider connecting students to relevant contacts or having them be a guest speaker.
Ask Alumni: If you’ve had students who have gone into the field, especially if you’ve stayed in contact with them, consider having them be a guest speaker or asking them to explain how your class helped prepare them for industry. What types of things could you change in your class to help make this transition more effective?
Socializing Students through the Syllabus
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.” is one of the largest colloquialisms when it comes to career trajectory. In addition, a big part of attending higher education is to help propel student careers. While we may want to prepare students by just giving them the necessary knowledge for their future endeavors, we should also strive to take this time to help establish connections and reasonable paths forward for them as well.
Engagement/Participation:
Student engagement is defined by how actively and enthusiastically students are involved in the learning process during class. Meanwhile, participation refers to actual involvement of the students. So, it is possible for:
A student may participate and not be engaged,
Or a student to be engaged but not participate.
This is important to consider when defining your pedagogical approach to classroom engagement and participation, and how you define it within your class. If you plan to award student participation, or your class heavily relies on discussion and active student engagement, you may even want to provide these definitions in the syllabus.
However, you may not directly explain these ideas and instead focus on whether ask these questions of your syllabus:
Does your teaching style facilitate your views of participation/engagement?
Is your syllabus communicating whether you want students to participate?
Is the syllabus itself engaging for students?
Do your assessments reflect your goals for participation/engagement?
In what ways is your syllabus contributing to student participation and engagement?
Peer-to-peer Interaction
Students working together is crucial for learning and development. It helps students build necessary social skills, establish relationships between current/future colleagues, increases active participation and engagement and often increases student self-efficacy towards the course topic.
Therefore, it is encouraged that you construct course materials that facilitate peer-to-peer interactions and foster some sense of community within your classroom. As far as what to include in the syllabus, you should specify what types of activities you will hold that require peer-to-peer interactions, and what expectations you have of students during these interactions.
For example, the syllabus may contain:
A list of classroom rules that you or your class develops:
Developing them yourself lets you be in control of exactly what values you want accentuated in your class.
Developing them as a class can communicate that students have autonomy over their learning and increase classroom engagement.
Examples of peer-discussion techniques you use:
Whole Group Discussions:
Ask your class to consider a question/topic and facilitate a group discussion on the topic, allowing students to speak freely and challenge one another.
Think-Pair-Share:
Ask students to individually consider a question/topic, discuss it with a partner, then share their insights with the whole class.
Mingle-Pair-Share:
Similar to think-pair-share, except students can move freely about the class and have discussions with multiple students.
Discussion Groups:
Breaking students into smaller groups to hold discussions on a question/topic, which can then be brought into larger group discussions.
Jigsaw:
Break down a larger topic into smaller pieces and allow each group to focus on an individual piece to share out in a whole class discussion.
Collaborative Assignments:
Students work together in small groups to develop material specified by a rubric or find solutions to laid out problems.
Socratic Seminar:
This is an open discussion based on an assigned set of readings. Instead of generating a question or specific topic you want students to consider, just allow them to openly discuss the material and explore at their own pace.
There are numerous other ways you may facilitate peer-to-peer relationships and communication, but however you choose to do so, it is helpful to communicate that to students upfront and through the syllabus.
Instructor-Student Interaction:
Fair or not, how students reflect on course material, or a specific subject, largely depends on their (impression of)/ (relationship with) their teacher. For this reason, it’s important to have a positive relationship between an instructor and their student. The syllabus, again especially as a first impression, can help facilitate this relationship and help an instructor feel more approachable. For this reason, it’s important that your syllabus:
Sets a welcoming/positive tone:
Clearly communicate your enthusiasm for the course and the students participating.
Set expectations but don’t dictate them.
Include words with positive connotations
As an example, instead of describing student work as “acceptable” consider saying it is “valid” or “commendable”
Avoid negatives (such as “do not” or “unable to” as much as possible)
Encourages engagement:
You’ve explained what types of engagement you’re looking for, but now it is important to encourage that from students. To do so:
Give examples of your interactive content.
Engage in storytelling by sharing personal details you feel comfortable sharing.
Ask for and encourage student feedback.
Be authentic.
Promotes your own availability:
One of the leading reasons students don’t attend office hours is because they feel they are “awkward.” To break through this barrier, you might:
Explain the value office hours provide students:
Promote the benefits such as improved understanding and better test scores.
Highlight success stories
Offer flexible scheduling for office hours.
Consider Location/Modality:
Are you available via video or only in-person?
If in-person, where are you available to meet and how accessible is that to the students?
Set one-on-one meetings during the semester.
These can be informal and short to get students familiar with the process, or perhaps there is a specific purpose tied to the meeting.
Students who feel more comfortable with their instructor tend to perform significantly better in a course and have a stronger sense of confidence in their own ability. Fostering this relationship is one of the most crucial for the educator to create a positive classroom environment.
Provide Connections:
With the goal in mind that students attend college to increase career success, it is important to use our abilities and connections to help them achieve it. This will appear vastly different depending on the field of study, and possible career paths, but here are some forms this may take:
Connect students with other faculty: Perhaps another member of the department or institution you know has better connections that align with a student’s career aims, or areas of interest.
Have guest speakers: You can’t know everything, and having a guest speaker can help students gain exposure to the community around the topic they’re studying and form meaningful connections with them.
Utilize connections in the field: You more than likely studied this material at your own university/had a job in the field. Consider connecting students to relevant contacts or having them be a guest speaker.
Ask Alumni: If you’ve had students who have gone into the field, especially if you’ve stayed in contact with them, consider having them be a guest speaker or asking them to explain how your class helped prepare them for industry. What types of things could you change in your class to help make this transition more effective?
Authored by:
Erik Flinn
Posted on: #iteachmsu
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.” is one of the la...
Socializing Students through the Syllabus
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.” is one of the la...
Authored by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Monday, Apr 21, 2025
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Respecting Blind Spartans: Giving Directions
Professors generally provide students with building names and room numbers for their classrooms, offices, and relevant resources on campus, but how can they make these locations more accessible to students, especially those who are blind or visually impaired? In short, referencing noticeable landmarks and changes in environment go a long way! This card will provide some tips on how to provide clear directions to students, and where to put them so they are easy to access.
Tips for giving clear directions
Mention landmarks (a fountain that is always running, brick pavers by the entrance, a change in terrain, steps, a bridge, etc.)
Mention if the building of the location is near a popular structures (south of Bomont Tower, next to The Union, west of Wells hall).
Specify where to find the wheelchair accessible entrance.
Describe where the classroom is located within the building (across from the elevator, on the left past the drinking fountain).
Where to make these directions viewable
As a hyperlink in the syllabus.
On D2L.
In an email or conversation if discussing a meeting with a student who might benefit.
Tips for giving clear directions
Mention landmarks (a fountain that is always running, brick pavers by the entrance, a change in terrain, steps, a bridge, etc.)
Mention if the building of the location is near a popular structures (south of Bomont Tower, next to The Union, west of Wells hall).
Specify where to find the wheelchair accessible entrance.
Describe where the classroom is located within the building (across from the elevator, on the left past the drinking fountain).
Where to make these directions viewable
As a hyperlink in the syllabus.
On D2L.
In an email or conversation if discussing a meeting with a student who might benefit.
Authored by:
Jessica Lemond
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
Respecting Blind Spartans: Giving Directions
Professors generally provide students with building names and room ...
Authored by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2020
Posted on: #iteachmsu
DISCIPLINARY CONTENT
MSU AT&T Awards Recognize Innovative Educators
AT&T, the nationwide telecommunication giant, continues its generous support of Michigan State University faculty and staff with the 2020 AT&T Awards.Established as grants in 2005, AT&T Awards recognize faculty and staff who have utilized technology in exciting new ways to improve their classrooms. With courses ranging from computer science to business, all fields of study at MSU are eligible. Each year, educators are asked to present how they use technology to enhance the learning experiences they deliver to their students. The AT&T Awards are an excellent opportunity to recognize innovation in instructional technology, as well as the educators and staff responsible for utilizing them.
This year, the AT&T Awards will recognize winners in three different categories: Online, Hybrid and Best Technology-Enabled Innovation. The Online category is open to instructors who use technology to enhance effective teaching practices in an online course. The Hybrid category is for instructors who replace 50% seat time with online experiences in hybrid classes. The third and final category, Best Technology-Enabled Innovation, is for those who enhance in-person courses with technology or "flip" their courses. Flipped courses are those in which much of the lecture and content work is done by the students outside of the classroom, leaving more time for active instruction.
All submissions will be collected by Feb. 24 and winners will be announced in March.
In April, MSU IT will host an awards luncheon featuring special guest speakers to recognize the first-place winners and honorable mentions from each of the categories. Previous winners have utilized a variety of concepts, including digital syllabi, hands-on learning for newcomers, hardware and programming and using video conference calls that help improve classroom engagement.
MSU IT is proud to partner with AT&T to help support MSU faculty and teaching staff. We thank all of our educators for their continued dedication to academic excellence. Their commitment and innovative spirit help build a generation of global, future-ready Spartans.
For more information, be sure to check out https://att-awards.msu.edu/
This year, the AT&T Awards will recognize winners in three different categories: Online, Hybrid and Best Technology-Enabled Innovation. The Online category is open to instructors who use technology to enhance effective teaching practices in an online course. The Hybrid category is for instructors who replace 50% seat time with online experiences in hybrid classes. The third and final category, Best Technology-Enabled Innovation, is for those who enhance in-person courses with technology or "flip" their courses. Flipped courses are those in which much of the lecture and content work is done by the students outside of the classroom, leaving more time for active instruction.
All submissions will be collected by Feb. 24 and winners will be announced in March.
In April, MSU IT will host an awards luncheon featuring special guest speakers to recognize the first-place winners and honorable mentions from each of the categories. Previous winners have utilized a variety of concepts, including digital syllabi, hands-on learning for newcomers, hardware and programming and using video conference calls that help improve classroom engagement.
MSU IT is proud to partner with AT&T to help support MSU faculty and teaching staff. We thank all of our educators for their continued dedication to academic excellence. Their commitment and innovative spirit help build a generation of global, future-ready Spartans.
For more information, be sure to check out https://att-awards.msu.edu/
Authored by:
Erik Heckel
Posted on: #iteachmsu
MSU AT&T Awards Recognize Innovative Educators
AT&T, the nationwide telecommunication giant, continues its gen...
Authored by:
DISCIPLINARY CONTENT
Friday, Feb 14, 2020
Posted on: IT - Educational Technology
MSU Educational Technology Summit
MSU Educational Technology Summit
June 2 - 5, 2025
This event aims to familiarize instructors, staff, and students with campus technologies supporting teaching and learning. This year, there will be workshops and presentations on useful tips and instructor experiences using technology tools and campus resources such as: Camtasia, Packback, Eli Review, 3D Printing, Quality Matters, Crowdmark, Knowledge Commons, Online Whiteboards, Virtual Reality, D2L, AI, OneNote Class, Spartan A11y, Stable Links, Zoom, iClicker, Open Educational Resources (OER), and more!Interested in attending? You can enroll for the MSU Educational Technology Summit on D2L now! Zoom registration links for all virtual meetings are available by enrolling in the 2025 Educational Technology Summit on D2L. Please enroll for the D2L course and, once in the D2L course, register for each Zoom session you plan to attend. Descriptions of each session and topics covered are available on the D2L course as well. Or you can register to attend through LibCal.
Monday June 2, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMEli Review: Exploring How to Improve Feedback Across Multiple DisciplinesPresented by Casey McArdle / cmcardle@msu.edu WRAC11:00 AM - 11:50 AMInvestigating the Relationship of Quality Matters (QM) on Online Student Engagement in Higher EducationPresented by David Goodrich / daveg@msu.edu CTLI1:00 PM - 1:50 PMTransforming Clinical Training with Virtual Reality: A Campus-Wide OpportunityPresented by Andy Greger / gregeran@msu.edu College of Nursing2:00 PM - 2:50 PMTeaching with the OneNote Class Notebook and TeamsPresented by Kevin Markle / marklek2@broad.msu.edu Broad College - Accounting and Information Systems3:00 PM - 3:50 PMFrom Live to Library: Enabling Inclusive, Adaptive Learning through Zoom and MediaSpacePresented by Keith LeRoux & Stephen Elmer / lerouxk1@msu.edu, elmerst2@msu.edu Statewide Campus System College of Osteopathic Medicine
Tuesday June 3, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AM3D Printing and Modeling for EveryonePresented by Amanda Tickner / atickner@msu.edu MSU Libraries Makerspace11:00 AM - 11:50 AMGetting Started with KCWorks, the New Knowledge Commons Repository!Presented by Larissa Babak / babaklar@msu.edu Knowledge Commons1:00 PM - 1:50 PMD2L Checklists: A Simple Tool to Improve Course NavigationPresented by Andrea Bierema / abierema@msu.edu Center for Integrative Studies in General Science & Dept. of Integrative Biology2:00 PM - 2:50 PMNeuroSupport GPT: Demonstrating the Design Process of a Custom GPT for Inclusive TeachingPresented by Min Zhuang / zhuangm2@msu.edu EDLI3:00 PM - 3:50 PMFrom Classroom to Text: Leveraging SMS for Real-Time Learning and Student SupportPresented by Christina Bridges & Julia Barnes / bridgec3@msu.edu & barne454@msu.edu Strategic Retention Unit, Office of Undergraduate Education
Wednesday June 4, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMGetting Started with Camtasia and SnagitPresented by Casey Seiter / c.seiter@techsmith.com TechSmith11:00 AM - 11:50 AMSimple Tools, Big Impact: Modifying Learning Environments with Simple Tech for Non-English SpeakersPresented by Allison Peterson & Cathy Lugibihl / peter382@msu.edu & lugibihl@msu.edu Student Life & Engagement, Human Resources - Talent Development Team1:00 PM - 1:50 PMRemoving Barriers to Learning: Improve D2L Course Usability and Accessibility with Ally/Presented by Kevin Henley & Sam Abele/ henley@msu.edu & abelesam@msu.edu IT-Educational Technology
2:00 PM - 2:50 PMCall Us Irresponsible: Designing Online Curricula for the AI EraPresented by Lisa Batchelder & Sarah Freye/ schulma7@msu.edu & freyesar@msu.edu IT-Educational Technology3:00 PM - 3:50 PMClassroom Engagement Made Simple: iClickerPresented by David Maltby / David.Maltby@Macmillan.com iClicker
Thursday June 5, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMUsing Technology Tools to Engage Students in Extensive ReadingPresented by Wenying Zhou / zhouweny@msu.edu Dept. of Linguistics, Languages, and Cultures11:00 AM - 11:50 AMOnline Whiteboards: Enhancing Teaching, Collaboration, and Community BuildingPresented by Ellie Louson & Makena Neal / lousonel@msu.edu & mneal@msu.edu CTLI & Lyman Briggs College1:00 PM - 1:50 PMAI in the ClassroomPresented by Koelling / jorie.koelling@packback.co Packback
2:00 PM - 2:50 PMStable Links for Electronic ResourcesPresented by Kristen Lee / leekrist@msu.edu MSU Libraries3:00 PM - 3:50 PMThe Best of Both Worlds: The Academic Security of In-Person Assessments and the Ease of Digital GradingPresented by Phillip C,. Delekta / delektap@msu.edu Dept. of Microbiology, Genetics, & Immunology
June 2 - 5, 2025
This event aims to familiarize instructors, staff, and students with campus technologies supporting teaching and learning. This year, there will be workshops and presentations on useful tips and instructor experiences using technology tools and campus resources such as: Camtasia, Packback, Eli Review, 3D Printing, Quality Matters, Crowdmark, Knowledge Commons, Online Whiteboards, Virtual Reality, D2L, AI, OneNote Class, Spartan A11y, Stable Links, Zoom, iClicker, Open Educational Resources (OER), and more!Interested in attending? You can enroll for the MSU Educational Technology Summit on D2L now! Zoom registration links for all virtual meetings are available by enrolling in the 2025 Educational Technology Summit on D2L. Please enroll for the D2L course and, once in the D2L course, register for each Zoom session you plan to attend. Descriptions of each session and topics covered are available on the D2L course as well. Or you can register to attend through LibCal.
Monday June 2, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMEli Review: Exploring How to Improve Feedback Across Multiple DisciplinesPresented by Casey McArdle / cmcardle@msu.edu WRAC11:00 AM - 11:50 AMInvestigating the Relationship of Quality Matters (QM) on Online Student Engagement in Higher EducationPresented by David Goodrich / daveg@msu.edu CTLI1:00 PM - 1:50 PMTransforming Clinical Training with Virtual Reality: A Campus-Wide OpportunityPresented by Andy Greger / gregeran@msu.edu College of Nursing2:00 PM - 2:50 PMTeaching with the OneNote Class Notebook and TeamsPresented by Kevin Markle / marklek2@broad.msu.edu Broad College - Accounting and Information Systems3:00 PM - 3:50 PMFrom Live to Library: Enabling Inclusive, Adaptive Learning through Zoom and MediaSpacePresented by Keith LeRoux & Stephen Elmer / lerouxk1@msu.edu, elmerst2@msu.edu Statewide Campus System College of Osteopathic Medicine
Tuesday June 3, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AM3D Printing and Modeling for EveryonePresented by Amanda Tickner / atickner@msu.edu MSU Libraries Makerspace11:00 AM - 11:50 AMGetting Started with KCWorks, the New Knowledge Commons Repository!Presented by Larissa Babak / babaklar@msu.edu Knowledge Commons1:00 PM - 1:50 PMD2L Checklists: A Simple Tool to Improve Course NavigationPresented by Andrea Bierema / abierema@msu.edu Center for Integrative Studies in General Science & Dept. of Integrative Biology2:00 PM - 2:50 PMNeuroSupport GPT: Demonstrating the Design Process of a Custom GPT for Inclusive TeachingPresented by Min Zhuang / zhuangm2@msu.edu EDLI3:00 PM - 3:50 PMFrom Classroom to Text: Leveraging SMS for Real-Time Learning and Student SupportPresented by Christina Bridges & Julia Barnes / bridgec3@msu.edu & barne454@msu.edu Strategic Retention Unit, Office of Undergraduate Education
Wednesday June 4, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMGetting Started with Camtasia and SnagitPresented by Casey Seiter / c.seiter@techsmith.com TechSmith11:00 AM - 11:50 AMSimple Tools, Big Impact: Modifying Learning Environments with Simple Tech for Non-English SpeakersPresented by Allison Peterson & Cathy Lugibihl / peter382@msu.edu & lugibihl@msu.edu Student Life & Engagement, Human Resources - Talent Development Team1:00 PM - 1:50 PMRemoving Barriers to Learning: Improve D2L Course Usability and Accessibility with Ally/Presented by Kevin Henley & Sam Abele/ henley@msu.edu & abelesam@msu.edu IT-Educational Technology
2:00 PM - 2:50 PMCall Us Irresponsible: Designing Online Curricula for the AI EraPresented by Lisa Batchelder & Sarah Freye/ schulma7@msu.edu & freyesar@msu.edu IT-Educational Technology3:00 PM - 3:50 PMClassroom Engagement Made Simple: iClickerPresented by David Maltby / David.Maltby@Macmillan.com iClicker
Thursday June 5, 2025
9:00 AM - 9:50 AM
AI Playground
The AI Playground is a virtual drop-in space where you can explore creative and practical ways to use AI in teaching and learning. No prep or pressure—just come as you are and see what’s possible!
Presented by MSU IT EdTech / EducationalTechnology@msu.edu
10:00 AM - 10:50 AMUsing Technology Tools to Engage Students in Extensive ReadingPresented by Wenying Zhou / zhouweny@msu.edu Dept. of Linguistics, Languages, and Cultures11:00 AM - 11:50 AMOnline Whiteboards: Enhancing Teaching, Collaboration, and Community BuildingPresented by Ellie Louson & Makena Neal / lousonel@msu.edu & mneal@msu.edu CTLI & Lyman Briggs College1:00 PM - 1:50 PMAI in the ClassroomPresented by Koelling / jorie.koelling@packback.co Packback
2:00 PM - 2:50 PMStable Links for Electronic ResourcesPresented by Kristen Lee / leekrist@msu.edu MSU Libraries3:00 PM - 3:50 PMThe Best of Both Worlds: The Academic Security of In-Person Assessments and the Ease of Digital GradingPresented by Phillip C,. Delekta / delektap@msu.edu Dept. of Microbiology, Genetics, & Immunology
Posted by:
Lindsay Tigue
Posted on: #iteachmsu
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Holly Flynn
Job Title: Coordinator of Outreach and EngagementDepartment: MSU Libraries Team: Outreach and Engagement Bio: Holly Flynn is the Coordinator of Outreach and Engagement at the MSU Libraries. She has been at MSU for 20 years, and coordinates and organizes programming and engagement for the libraries, including the very popular therapy dogs, Night of a Thousand donuts, and Blind Date with a Book. She coordinates library orientations and resource outreach, and works with groups across campus to bolster the presence of the Libraries at and around MSU.
Authored by:
Educator Seminars
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Holly Flynn
Job Title: Coordinator of Outreach and EngagementDepartment: M...
Authored by:
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Tuesday, Aug 9, 2022