We found 101 results that contain "closed captioning"

The NavBar in D2L is the panel at the top of your course homepage that provides links to important tools and pages. When you open a new course, the NavBar includes a default set of links and drop-down menus to various D2L features. It usually looks something like the image below.

Why customize your NavBar?

You may not use all the tools included in the default NavBar; removing unused items can simplify navigation for students.
A streamlined, relevant NavBar helps students find what they need more efficiently.
You can personalize it to fit your teaching style, whether that’s clean and text-based or visual with icons.

How to customize your NavBar

On your course homepage, locate the NavBar at the top.
Click the three-dot menu icon on the right side of the NavBar.
From the dropdown, select “Customize this NavBar.”

Note: When you customize the NavBar, you're creating a new version of the MSU NavBar for your course.

Edit NavBar Links

Under the “Name” textbox, you’ll see a “Links” section listing all current NavBar buttons.
Hover over any link to delete it or drag to reorder.
Click “Add Links” to include new tools, even ones that normally appear in dropdowns, like “Class Progress,” without adding the entire “Assessments” menu.


Enable icon-based navigation (optional):
Prefer a more visual layout?Check the box labeled “Enable Icon-Based NavBar”, located just below the “Add Links” button. This will display icons instead of (or alongside) text for each link.
Preview and Save

Click “Save and Close” to preview your updated NavBar.
You can continue editing it at any time until it feels just right.
If at any time you want to see what the NavBar looks like, click "save and close." You can edit it as much as needed.

Tips:

Students don’t see all the same tools that you do (e.g., “Course Admin” and “Intelligent Agents”). Use the View as Student feature to check how the NavBar appears from their perspective.
Avoid changing the NavBar after students have access, as it may confuse them.

Example
Here’s what my instructor NavBar looks like:It includes only the tools I use, arranged in the order students need them. I’ve removed dropdown menus since I don’t use all the tools they contain. Students see a clean, focused navigation bar that matches how the course is structured.

Since 2017, the MSU Strategic Communication Online M.A. has been helping working professionals advance their careers with skills the marketplace demands. A tenet of the program has been the fostering of interpersonal engagement, by creating spaces for student-to-student interaction and student-to-staff interaction. Through surveys and interviews with current students, we measure the importance of program engagement for students by tracking the effectiveness of: various communication mediums and tools; and personal touchpoints with classmates and MSU StratCom staff.

To access a PDF of the "The importance of interpersonal engagement in an online master's degree program" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
The importance of interpersonal engagement in an online master’s degree program 
 Introduction 
The purpose of this report is to provide the Michigan State University Strategic Communication Online M.A. a summary of students’ perceptions of engagement in the program. This report focuses on the responses of currently enrolled students as of Spring semester 2021. Students voluntarily responded to a survey sent out via email and social media. Additionally, students were given the option to agree to a second phone interview for further insights. The report looks at engagement through students’ connection to each other, to staff and faculty, and facilitated through various tools and media. 
Methodology 
Survey Purpose and Methodology 
To gain an understanding and perspective of students’ views on engagement in the StratCom program a written survey was sent by Daune Rensing, StratCom Student Advisor, via email.  


The email was sent to the MSU email address of students currently enrolled in either the StratCom master’s or certificate program, on March 15, 2021. 


Written reminders were sent March 22 and March 29. 


A video reminder was posted by Jason Archer, StratCom Director, on StratCom’s Student Life, Teams and Facebook pages on March 29. 




The 24-question survey was closed on April 2, extended from the original deadline of March 25. 


Sixty-two responses were received with 2 incomplete surveys, resulting in 60 responses.  


Phone Interview Purpose and Methodology 
To expand the understanding and perspective students views on engagement in the StratCom program, a follow up phone interview was conducted. Forty students responded positively to a question on the survey asking if they would be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview with a fellow student. 
Limitations 
The limited nature of the data set needs to be taken into consideration when weighing the meaning and significance of the insights reported here. The written surveys were completed by students enrolled anywhere from their first semester to last in the program, which may affect their perceptions of the program. All phone interviews were conducted by one person, which may result in some bias of interpretation. 
Research Questions 
To measure the importance of engagement in the StratCom program, the research questions in the survey and phone interview fell into three categories:  

What tools and resources are important for student engagement in the StratCom program?  
Do students feel the StratCom program is meeting their engagement needs?  
What changes/improvements does the StratCom program need to make to meet students’ expectations? 

Results 
These graphs highlight responses to our first two questions of what students do value and what they don’t value, and that we are meeting their engagement needs. The conclusion, in more detail, addresses ways in which respondents feel StratCom can improve engagement. 
Conclusion 
Overwhelmingly, respondents felt that StratCom was meeting their engagement needs, in terms of tools used and connection to faculty and staff, and that it was an important part of their time in the program. To continue StratCom’s good start, some respondents had suggestions to strengthen their engagement experience even more:

Set expectations for tools and resources 
More student onboarding  
Intentional diversity throughout the program 
Develop stronger bonds with fellow students and instructors 
Standardization in the curriculum 
Use the coursework to develop student-led engagement activities in the program 

Future Work 
Planning for StratCom’s future and creating a sustainable engagement model are themes respondents suggested. For instance, leadership contingency plans, consistency among courses and “keeping their finger on the pulse” of student needs and industry requirements were all important things to consider moving forward. 
  
 

For years, the Office of Admissions has provided our campus with an academic profile of each incoming class. Admissions is now positioned to provide a similar profile of admitted students' co-curricular activities. The data-informed profile provides opportunities to assess how many such activities were tied to areas such as athletics or find more narrow measures, such as the scale of first-year Lyman Briggs College student involvement within the fine arts. Additionally, our institution can identify involvements in areas such as research activity, with such involvements potentially providing students with a foundation for future involvement in high-impact experiences at the undergraduate level.To access a PDF of the "What is the Activities Profile of our Fall 2021 First-Year Class?" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
 
What is the Activities Profile of our Fall 2021 First-Year Class? 
Terence Brown 
Abstract 
For years, the Office of Admissions has provided our campus with an academic profile of each incoming class. Admissions is now positioned to provide a similar profile of admitted students’ cocurricular activities. The data-informed profile provides opportunities to assess how many such activities were tied to areas such as athletics or find more narrow measures, such as the scale of first-year Lyman Briggs College student involvement within the fine arts. Additionally, our institution can identify involvements in areas such as research activity, with such involvements potentially providing students with a foundation for future involvement in high-impact practices at the undergraduate level.  [The abstract is accompanied by word cloud that forms a two-dimensional Spartan helmet from the Common Application’s categories for student co-curriculars.]  
Introduction 
MSU’s adoption of the Common Application, now allows Admissions for to collect descriptive information for applicants’ cocurricular activities. The additional information includes applicant descriptions of their high school cocurriculars, categories assigned to each activity and whether a student wishes to continue participation in the activity during their collegiate years. Currently, approximately 71% of first-year students apply to MSU via the Common Application.    This assessment fundamentally asks two questions: 

What does the profile look in the aggregate and by college? 
Can the profile information support our institution’s efforts in the realm of offering high-impact practices (Kuh et al., 2008; AACU, 2018) to our students? 

Results 
In assessing the 204,672 admitted student activity entries as of April 19, 2021, there were a few general findings. First was that students wished to continue with approximately 66% percent of these activities. Second was that the leading activity categories were athletics, community service and work. The collective of academic activities was ranked fourth, with the category having been in the top three in the two preceding years. The test case of Lyman Briggs majors with fine arts experiences was a significant (378 total) but small 5.5%. A full review of results across colleges is pending, but early findings only showed occasional reordering of the established top four categories.   This data must be viewed with the understanding that many applications are completed by the parents of applicants (Jaschik, 2017). However, the data still provides a good foundation for identifying activities that can serve as a gateway to high-impact practices at MSU. There were lower rankings for high school activities categories covering involvements that would most-readily prepare students for Internships, Diversity/Global Understanding and Research.  [The “results” section includes an Excel chart that lists the total activities reported by category, the Common Application’s activity categories, high impact experience categories and MSU Student Activities categories for student organizations.]  
Methods 
During the three most-recent admissions cycles, an iterative process has been used to collect and organized the cocurricular data from applications submitted via the Common Application platform. The Common Application is one of three platforms available to students, but was used by the majority of applicants in each of the last three admission cycles.   Summary data was compiled and applied to a matrix that incorporates all 30 Common Application categories for activities, five of the 11 high-impact practice categories and 12 of MSU’s Student Activities Office’s applicable student organization categories. Additional keywork searches were conducted, identifying student involvement in popular activities such as DECA and rare research areas such as CRISPR, but the activity profile’s assessment mainly focused on the broader categories.  [This section includes seven small, unconnected circles that are collectively placed in an array that forms a larger circle. Each circle includes text that describes a different step in the process used to gather, compile and share the data used in this poster presentation.]  
Conclusions 
The dominant application categories have largely held steady for three admission cycles. There was a notable change with the emergence of work moving into the top three. Incidentally, the top three categories have slightly varied in previous comparisons between MSU college cohorts. A similar assessment will be made after the closing of our MSU’s deposit deadline.  Future work in this area can be supported through use of the Educational Development Plan which Michigan schools maintain starting in middle school. To determine whether a particular high school activity helps prepare for high-impact involvement, the assessment portion of the EDP (Michigan Department of Education) could be used to identify traits that George Kuh associates with high-impact practices. Were the EDP to identify activities that provide students with sustained involvement, advisor involvement or a relevant coaching philosophy, such data could be inputted into the Slate CRM, and shared with appropriate campus partners prior to admitted student matriculation.  
Citations 

Association of American Colleges & Universities (2018). High-impact educational practices. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/node/4084 
Jaschik, S. (July 26, 2017). Survey: Parents finishing parts of college applications. From Inside Higher Education 
Kuh, G. D., Schneider, C. G., & Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities 
Michigan Department of Education (n.d.). The Educational Development Plan, p. 3. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/EDP_Fundamentals_ADA2017_570694_7.pdf 

This poster outlines approximately 20 suggestions to help students navigate online courses more successfully. Even with careful planning and development, the normalization of remote learning has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses. Besides worrying about a stable internet connection, students must confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs notwithstanding, and despite our carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and the like, students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the brave new world of the virtual. The reduction of course material by instructors to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them as they make the shift to online learning. But there are a number of fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth this rocky road over which students must now travel. The tips I share have emerged and been developed further as part of my own ongoing process to minimize confusion, frustration, and improve levels of engagement, while simultaneously imparting more agency to the students enrolled in my IAH courses here at Michigan State University.To access a PDF of the "Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster 
Pandemic Pedagogy: Online Learning and Suggestions for Minimizing Student Storms in a Teacup 
Stokes Schwartz, Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts and Humanities 
College of Arts and Letters, Michigan State University 
Abstract 
The normalization of remote learning during 2020-2021 has not been without challenges for the students enrolled in our courses.  Besides worrying about stable internet connections, they must also confront a steep learning curve and considerable frustration when it comes to completing even the most basic coursework each week. Even with instructor participation in the ASPIRE and SOIREE programs, carefully worded syllabi, weekly course modules, project packets, assignment prompts, and etc., students nevertheless experience significant confusion and anxiety when faced with the prospect of leaving the physical classroom behind for the virtual. Our reduction of course material to bite-sized chunks and the opportunity for online collaboration with their classmates via Zoom or Teams do not necessarily mean students greet online learning with open arms. Already entrenched attitudes and habits among many young adults do little to help them either in the shift to online learning.  But there are a few fairly simple ways that instructors can smooth the rocky road over which students must travel. The tips and suggestions I share in this poster presentation have emerged as part of my own ongoing process to minimize student confusion, frustration, and improve engagement, while simultaneously impart greater agency and opportunity for success to the young adults populating my asynchronous online IAH courses here at MSU during the 2020-2021 academic year. 
Background 

In mid-March 2020, school pupils, university students, and educators everywhere were thrown into disarray by the mass onset of the Covid-19 virus, related lockdowns, and interruptions to normal student-instructor interactions. 
At Michigan State University, we scrambled throughout the summer to prepare for the 2020-2021AY and reconfigure existing courses for online delivery.  
Yet reasonably well developed and presented online courses alone have not enough for students to succeed.  Even in the face of MSU’s push for empathy and understanding, students have demonstrated that they require additional help making the leap from traditional face-to-face to online learning. 
Instructors are well-placed to assist students in an ongoing way as they make this challenging transition.   
Without much additional work, we can support and encourage our students with weekly reminders that exhibit kind words, cues, prompts, signposts pointing the way forward, and calls to action. 
We can foster improved student engagement, learning, and success despite the challenging, new environment in which we operate. 
We can guide students through their many weekly activities with roadmaps to help them navigate course intricacies more easily 
We can provide students with ample opportunity for new ways of learning, thinking, knowing, and the acquisition of 21st century skills. 
In short, faculty teaching online courses occupy an ideal position to prepare students to operate more efficiently and productively in the real world after graduation since remote work and collaboration online is expected to increase markedly as society speeds further along into the 21st century. 

Develop Supporting Communications 

Beside online syllabi, course modules with seem to be clear directions, etc. students need reminders to keep an asynchronous online general education course in mind, on the rails, and moving forward.   
Routine, consistent supporting communications to students from the instructor help to minimize student confusion. 
Send reminders on the same day each week for the coming week. 
Include headers in all course documents, and email signatures, listing a few ‘how to succeed in this course’ tips. 
Share same supporting communication to weekly modules in LMS.  
Students benefit from supporting communication that guide them through the activities for a given week during the semester. 
When students see supporting communications routinely and predictably, they are more likely to remember and act on it. 

Provide Weekly Guidelines 

Through supporting communication, provide additional prompts, directions, clarifications, and reminders to students.  Let’s call these weekly reminders “guidelines.”. 
Emphasize steps students can take to achieve success in the course.  
Keep guidelines fairly short and to the point to avoid information overload. 
Include the week, your name, course name, and number at top of guidelines as both an advance organizer and to help guidelines standout in students’ email inboxes. 
Provide students with concise ‘roadmaps’ in these guidelines making it easy to plan and carry out their coursework each week. 
Conclude guidelines with a call to action for students to complete course-related activities, much like a TV or online commercial, or an old fashioned print ad. 
Think of weekly guidelines as marketing communications that have a higher purpose than just promotion however.  
Share same guidelines at top of weekly online modules in LMS, so students can access them in more than one place.  

Include Key Course Policy Reminders 

Students will not remember all course policies, and expectations outlined in our syllabi.  Some might conveniently “forget.”   
Provide gentle reminders from week to week.  
Assist students by including important course information as part of the guidelines sent each week.  
Remind students of key course policies, expectations, and their responsibilities as members of the course. 
One possible segue way might be,  “For students who have chosen to remain in this course, the expectation is. . .” 
Remind students that we are in a university setting, they are adults, and to avoid letting themselves fall through the cracks. 
Invite students to seek help or clarification from the instructor if they or their student learning team need it. 

Foster Civil Interaction 

We have asked students to make a huge leap into uncharted waters.  They are frustrated and possibly fearful. 
Many are not used to online learning, self-reflection, thinking on their feet, problem solving, or working cohesively with others.  
Many already exhibit an entitled, customer service mindset. 
Make expectations for civil interaction clear with a concise statement in online syllabi, modules, and weekly guidelines.   
Model civility with polite decorum and kindness to reduce potential problems with disgruntled students. 
Be respectful and civil in your synchronous, asynchronous, or email interaction with students.  Listen without interrupting. 
Avoid terse replies, even to naïve questions! 
Use the student’s name in verbal or email replies. 
Reduce the potential for unpleasant episodes by opening all email replies with “Thank you for your email,” and conclude them with “Best/Kind Regards. . .”   
Be the adult in the room and show patience, patience, patience! 
Here are vital teachable moments that allow us to help shape students for collegial and productive working lives following graduation. 
Civil interaction is challenging given the various pressures and constraints under which all of us, faculty and students, must operate, but it is an important part of facilitating continued student engagement and success in our online courses.  

Remind Students of the Skills They Cultivate 

Besides the specific subject matter of the course, remind students in weekly guidelines that they are also cultivating real world expertise.   
‘21st century skills, ’ a term used by Christopher J. Dede, John Richards  and others in The 60-Year Curriculum: New Models for Lifelong Learning in the Digital Economy (2020), enable a smooth transition into the globalized digital economy after graduation.   
Remind students that they are refining relevant skills in:  
Deeper (critical) thinking  
Collaboration and collegiality  
Personal and agency and proactive engagement.  
Effective planning and organization  
Time management.   
Intellectually openness and mental agility.   
Learning from mistakes.   
Accountability and ownership 
Self-Awareness  
Attention to detail  
Timely and Frequent Communication with Your Team  
Creative problem-solving  
Development of high quality work 
Consistency  
On-time delivery of assignments and projects. 
Self-regulation 
Frequent practice of skills like these during weekly course-related activities better prepares students for long term employability through an anticipated six decades of working life in a rapidly changing world. 

Establish Consistent Guideline Format 
Below is a possible format for the weekly guidelines I propose: 

A recurring header in your weekly that lists easy steps students can take to ensure their own success in course.  
Begin with an advance organizer that identifies right away the week, semester, and dates the guidelines are for. 
Follow with a friendly greeting and focusing statement in a brief paragraph. 
Highlight any due dates in yellow below the greeting below greeting and focusing statement. 
Include two-three concise paragraphs that enumerate and outline individual assignments or team projects for the week. 
Provide brief directions for how (and when) to ask questions or seek clarification. 
Furnish technical assistance contact information for students who experience challenges uploading assignments or team projects. 
Remind students gently about the collaborative course design and expectations for students enrolled in the course. 
Mention to students of the need to keep course policies and expectations in mind as they complete their work. 
Highlight the big picture skills students practice each week besides the specific subject matter of the course, and how those skills are relevant to their lives after graduation. 
Finish with a closing salutation that is a bit less formal and includes good wishes for students’ continued safety and well-being. 

Conclusion 

The approach outlined here has emerged, crystalized, and evolved over two semesters in the interest of ensuring student success in asynchronous online IAH courses. 
While these observations are preliminary at this point, most students in the six courses taught during 2020-2021 have met the challenges facing them, completed their individual and collaborative coursework, and met or exceeded rubric expectations.  
 Anticipated student problems and drama either have not materialized, or have been minimal. 
Early impressions suggest that supporting communications like these are helpful to students when it comes to navigating online courses more easily and completing related tasks. 
Weekly supporting communications, presented as brief guidelines, might also be useful in the context in synchronous online, hybrid, and hy-flex as well as traditional face-to-face courses when it comes to helping students navigate and complete coursework in less confused, more systematic way. 
Future plans include refining the weekly guidelines further and possibly assessing their effectiveness through a small study. 

Formative assessments can provide crucial data to help instructors evaluate pedagogical effectiveness and address students' learning needs. The shift to online instruction and learning in the past year emphasized the need for innovative ways to administer assessments that support student learning and success. Faculty often use multiple-choice (MC) assessments due to ease of use, time and other resource constraints. While grading these assessments can be quick, the closed-ended nature of the questions often does not align with real scientific practices and can limit the instructor's ability to evaluate the heterogeneity of student thinking. Students often have mixed understanding that include scientific and non-scientific ideas. Open-ended or Constructed Response (CR) assessment questions, which allow students to construct scientific explanations in their own words, have the potential to reveal student thinking in a way MC questions do not. The results of such assessments can help instructors make decisions about effective pedagogical content and approaches. We present a case study of how results from administration of a CR question via a free-to-use constructed response classifier (CRC) assessment tool led to changes in classroom instruction. The question was used in an introductory biology course and focuses on genetic information flow. Results from the CRC assessment tool revealed unexpected information about student thinking, including naïve ideas. For example, a significant fraction of students initially demonstrated mixed understanding of the process of DNA replication. We will highlight how these results influenced change in pedagogy and content, and as a result improved student understanding.To access a PDF of the "Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM 
Jenifer N. Saldanha, Juli D. Uhl, Mark Urban-Lurain, Kevin Haudek 
Automated Analysis of Constructed Response (AACR) research group 
CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University 
Email: jenifers@msu.edu 
Website: beyondmultiplechoice.org  
QR code (for website):  
 
Key highlights: 

Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions. 


The Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) Tool (free to use: beyondmultiplechoice.org) can be used to assess student learning gains 

In an introductory biology classroom: 

Analyses by the CRC tool revealed gaps in student understanding and non-normative ideas. 
The instructor incorporated short term pedagogical changes and recorded some positive outcomes on a summative assessment. 
Additional pedagogical changes incorporated the next semester led to even more positive outcomes related to student learning (this semester included the pivot to online instruction). 

The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Constructed Response Questions as Formative Assessments 

Formative assessments allow instructors to explore nuances of student thinking and evaluate student performance.  
Student understanding often includes scientific and non-scientific ideas [1,2].  


Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions [3,4]. 

Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool 

A formative assessment tool that automatically predicts ratings of student explanations.  
This Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool generates a report that includes: 


categorization of student ideas from writing related to conceptual understanding. 
web diagrams depicting the frequency and co-occurrence rates of the most used ideas and relevant terms. 

CRC Questions in the Introductory Biology Classroom :  
A Case study 
Students were taught about DNA replication and the central dogma of Biology. 
Question was administered as online homework, completion credit provided. Responses collected were analyzed by the CRC tool. 
CRC question: 
The following DNA sequence occurs near the middle of the coding region of a gene.  DNA   5'  A A T G A A T G G* G A G C C T G A A G G A  3'     
There is a G to A base change at the position marked with an asterisk. Consequently, a codon normally encoding an amino acid becomes a stop codon.  How will this alteration influence DNA replication? 

Part 1 of the CRC question used to detect student confusion between the central dogma processes.  
Related to the Vision & Change core concept 3 “Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage" [5], adapted from the Genetics Concept Assessment [6,7]. 

Insight on Instructional Efficacy from CRC Tool 
Table 1: Report score summary revealed that only a small fraction of students provided correct responses post instruction. (N = 48 students). 




Student responses 


Spring 2019 




Incorrect 


45% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


32% 




Correct 


23% 




 
Sample incorrect responses:  
Though both incorrect, the first response below demonstrates understanding of a type of mutation and the second one uses the context of gene expression. 

“This is a nonsense mutation and will end the DNA replication process prematurely leaving a shorter DNA strand” (spellchecked) 


“It will stop the DNA replication… This mutation will cause a gene to not be expressed” 

CRC report provided: 

Response score summaries 
Web diagrams of important terms 
Term usage and association maps 

The instructor Identified scientific and non-scientific ideas in student thinking  
This led to: 
Short term pedagogical changes, same semester  

During end of semester material review, incorporated: 


Small group discussions about the central dogma.  
Discussions about differences between DNA replication, and transcription and translation. 


Worksheets with questions on transcribing and translating sequences. 

Figure one: 
The figure depicts an improvement in student performance observed in the final summative assessment.  
Percentage of students who scored more than 95% on a related question: 
In the unit exam = 71% 
Final summative exam = 79% 
Pedagogical Changes Incorporated in the Subsequent Semester 
CR questions: 

Explain the central dogma. 


List similarities and differences between the processes involved. 
Facilitated small group discussions for students to explain their responses. 

 
Worksheets and homework:  
Transcribe and translate DNA sequences, including ones with deletions/additions.  
Students encouraged to create their own sequences for practice.  
Revisited DNA replication via clicker questions and discussions, while students were learning about transcription and translation. 
Table 2: 68% of students in the new cohort provided correct responses to the CRC question post instruction. (N = 47 students). 




Student Responses 


Spring 2020 




Incorrect 


19% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


13% 




Correct 


68% 




Conclusions 
The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Future Directions 

Use the analytic rubric feature in the CRC tool to obtain further insight into normative and non-normative student thinking. 
Use the clicker-based case study available at CourseSource about the processes in the central dogma [8]. 


Incorporate additional CRC tool questions in each course unit. 

Questions currently available in a variety of disciplines: 
Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Physiology, and Statistics 
Visit our website beyondmultiplechoice.org and sign up for a free account 
References: 

Ha, M., Nehm, R. H., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. E. (2011).  CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 379-393. 


Sripathi, K. N., Moscarella, R. A., et al., (2019). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar37. 


Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar26. 


Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385-395. 


 "Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action." American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC (2011). 


Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 422-430. 


Prevost, L. B., Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2016). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar65. 


Pelletreau, K. N., Andrews, T., Armstrong, N., et al., (2016). CourseSource. 

Acknowledgments.  
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (DUE grant 1323162). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies.