We found 605 results that contain "community engagement"

Interim Provost Thomas Jeitschko congratulated the more than a 140 Thank an Educator Award recipients and spoke on the importance of educator work at the Teaching and Learning Conference on Wednesday with virtual sessions running on Thursday. The conference is organized by the Center for Teaching & Learning Innovation and offers MSU educators the opportunity to gather and share approaches, tools, and techniques that support teaching and learning. This year's conference is focusing on community, conversation, and classroom experience. Interim Associate Provost Prabu David and Interim Provost Jeitschko share a smile and a fist bump in front of the #iteachMSU backdrop.Thank an Educator 

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 

In Fall 2020, we conducted CSE 260 (Discrete Mathematics) as a flipped class, where students were expected to watch videos before class so that they could use class time to work together to solve problems. This class covers foundational mathematics for computer science and computer engineering students. Students need a lot of practice to master the methods and concepts. Unfortunately, these problems do not provide an instant feedback mechanism similar to programming projects. A flipped class where students work together in a group, along with regular assistance by the instructional team, provides such a mechanism. We surveyed students to gather their impressions on the course. Most students liked the flipped class structure and generally preferred it to a traditional lecture format. Furthermore, students reported it helped them develop friendships, something difficult to achieve in the Covid-era.
To access a PDF of the "Benefits of Teaching a Large Course Using a Flipped Zoom Classroom" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
CSE 260 Flipped Class (Lessons Learned) 
Sandeep Kulkarni and Eric Torng 
 CSE 260: Discrete Mathematics

Topics Covered: 


Propositional and predicate logic 
Set Theory 
Elementary Number theory and its applications to cryptography 


Mathematical Induction 
Counting and probability 
Relations 


Role in Curriculum 


Foundational mathematics for computer science  

Analog to calculus (continuous mathematics) for engineering and natural sciences 
Why Flipped Class 

Students need lots of practice to master the methods and concepts 
Discrete math problems do not provide instant feedback to students if they do something wrong (unlike some programming errors such as a program failing to compile), so doing problems in class in groups helps students get quick feedback on any mistakes 
For Fall 2020, student groups not only improved learning, they also created a sense of community for students who participated regularly. 


80% of students responding to an end of semester survey reported they developed friendships through the homework groups 

 Flipped Class Design 

Class enrollment roughly 200 (10-20% were outside the US, several in Asia) 
Instructional Team 


2 faculty, 6 TAs/ULAs 


Online videos covered the core concepts 


Each video had an associated homework assignment that would be worked on in class by student groups 
Each video had an associated online quiz that every student was required to complete before working on the associated homework in class in groups 


Homework group composition 


20 groups, approximately 10 students per group 
Group creation started about a month before the first class 
Each student was asked to fill out a survey that asked two main things 


Do you request specific group partners? 


15% of students made such requests 


What is your self-perceived math background and ability to lead a group discussion? 
60% of students filled out the survey 


Groups were created based on these responses (group partner requests and balancing self-perceived ability) 
Groups did not change 


Homework group technical support 


Groups had a shared Google drive space for working on assignments 
Groups had predefined Zoom breakout rooms  


Some issues due to Zoom max of 200 participants for predefined breakout rooms 

First Week Activities 

The first week was focused on group work logistics and the daily structure 


We discussed group roles and group dynamics 
We had students practice their group collaboration on ungraded simple math exercises  


We had several technical issues the first week including having to move roughly 80 students rather than the anticipated 20 students to their predefined Zoom breakout rooms 

Daily Structure 

At the end of every class, each group submitted a survey to identify (1) difficulties encountered, (2) their current status in solving the homework problems, (3) and their assessment of the group collaboration. 


Before the next class, we prepared a few slides summarizing the responses in all three dimensions along with 2-3 quoted comments that best captured the current student sentiment. 
At the start of the next class, we spent roughly 20 minutes covering those slides. 
Afterwards, groups began their collaborative work in their assigned breakout rooms 
The instructional team moved through the groups to help as needed for both content and to enforce good group dynamics. 
The work done in class was submitted as (lightly graded) homework to ensure that it was completed 

Common Difficulties 

Internet issues 
Some students not watching the videos before class 
Freeloaders: some students not participating on a regular basis but getting the same homework grade leads to resentment from those that do participate. 
Groups were not perfectly synchronized; leading groups might be 2-3 assignments ahead of trailing groups. 

Lessons Learned 

# instructional staff needs to be about 1/3 # of groups 


This implies we can have at most ~20 groups with current instructional staff size 


Need better mechanisms to address freeloaders 


Perhaps more frequent individual assessments to ensure all students are participating and learning 


Each class/week must have specific deliverables to ensure group synchronization 
Stricter enforcement of requirements to watch videos before class 

 Survey 

Administered by Qualtrics 
Roughly 1/3 of students (65) responded 

Selected Comments 

I think the flipped model is much more effective when it has to be online and potentially I think it could work when in person classes are able to be taught again. I think some students learn a bit differently than others so I think having the option of flipped classes (maybe every other semester) could be beneficial to some and hindering to others.  


I feel like there would be more participation if the flipped class happened in person rather than zoom. People would likely hold themselves more accountable.  
I think the reason group work helped me learn was because it was over zoom. This way everyone is able to see a screen and hear each other. If it had been an in-person flipped class it would have been more difficult to communicate with such a large group, so groups would have to be smaller. The people sitting furthest away from wherever the work is being done would not participate. I think I learned the most when I was doing problems as a group.  
Flipped classroom in person is very nice.  For example CMSE 201, 202 and STT 180 all do very nice jobs of balancing the in class work and the pout of class lecture.  Also, having TA's walking around to help is very nice.  

 Information from Graphs 
Most students preferred flipped class 
There was a preference towards flipped in-person class 
Most students reported that they learnt a great deal from their peers 
49% students preferred flipped class, 5% preferred any option, Remaining students were ok with either. 

This week, we are featuring Norman Scheel, a Research Associate in MSU’s Department of Radiology Cognitive Imaging Research Center. Norman was recognized via iteach.msu.edu's Thank and Educator Initiative! We encourage MSU community members to nominate high-impact Spartan educators (via our Thank an Educator form) regularly!
Read more about Norman’s perspectives below. #iteachmsu's questions are bolded below, followed by their responses!

You were recognized via the Thank an Educator Initiative. In one word, what does being an educator mean to you? Share with me what this word/quality looks like in your practice? (Have your ideas on this changed over time? If so, how?) 
The word would be “rewarding”. For me, teaching and learning is a two-way street and no matter in which direction you are driving, it is always an investment in the future and there is always traffic in both ways. Above all, I want to set up my students for success. As a teacher, I see myself as a conductor to help my students achieve their personal goals and as a role model who possibly has a substantial influence on the future of my students. So, seeing my students excel is highly rewarding, but I am also learning so much from my students, every day, which is also immensely rewarding.
Tell me more about your educational “setting.” This can include, but not limited to departmental affiliations, community connections, co-instructors, and students. (AKA, where do you work?)
I am now in the final stages of my postdoc in the Radiology Department of Michigan State University and am currently applying for Assistant Professor positions. Together with Prof. David Zhu I supervise and mentor the graduate students in our lab as well as students that rotate through it. I also mentor and advise students remotely for their bachelor’s and master's theses at my home University of Lübeck, Germany where I did my Ph.D. in Computer Science and Computational Neuroscience. In my research, I work interdisciplinary with many different universities, e. g. Vanderbilt University, University of Texas, John Hopkins University, or the Max Planck Institute Tübingen, Germany, on a variety of research questions. With my collaborators at these institutions, there are always students working on joint projects where it is natural to mutually teach skills important for the project’s success but also in the personal interest of the students.
What is a challenge you experience in your educator role? Any particular “solutions” or “best practices” you’ve found that help you support student success at the university despite/in the face of this?
My German Diploma in Informatics taught me the importance of multidimensional learning, or as Aristotle said, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Over the last few years, I saw a trend that students are taught highly specific topics, without relating these to a “grand scheme”. Integrating information from multiple perspectives gives cross-references to other related topics and courses. This integration facilitates the ability to abstract learned information and helps to apply it in a more holistic way of connecting “the bigger picture”. For clarity, the content in my lectures is presented in a way that is illustrative rather than abstract, so that students are able to grasp the content and put it into relation to what they have learned before. I always try to highlight cross-references as much as possible, so that students see past the boundaries of final exams.
What are practices you utilize that help you feel successful as an educator?
The most important I think is to find a way to effectively communicate. As my teaching is typically in a small group or individual setting, I am able to tailor my teaching directly to the needs of my students. This helps tremendously in finding ways to communicate expectations between my students and me. 
What topics or ideas about teaching and learning would you like to see discussed on the iteach.msu.edu platform? Why do you think this conversation is needed at MSU? 
It would be amazing to have a central place on the platform, where educators could advertise potential master’s or bachelor’s theses, or rotation projects, or vice versa, students could advertise that they are on the look-out for these projects, with a few skills that they have, to see if there might be a fit. In my time here at MSU, it has been very difficult to find mid-level academic hands, especially interdisciplinary ones. The lack of or at least problematic communication between different parts of the University makes local collaboration very difficult.
What are you looking forward to (or excited to be a part of) next semester?
I am excited for a few of my students to get the chance to present at scientific conferences. It is always such a rewarding experience and always such a big push for motivation and new ideas.


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

The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities. An off-campus, flipped section of ANTR 350 has been offered in Grand Rapids during the summer since 2017. When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms.
Groups were assigned and reconfigured for each unit. The instructor provided recommendations for working effectively in a group and students received feedback after the first and third units regarding their teamwork skills and class performance. Unit exams were two-stage examinations, consisting of an individual exam followed immediately by a group exam. These examinations were timed and proctored over Zoom by faculty and staff.
Students and faculty faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. However, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and flexibility. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous iterations of the course. The instructor observed improved group work skills, which was mirrored by student feedback. Overall, we were able to retain the flipped approach and emphasis on group work by using Zoom breakout rooms to simulate a collaborative learning environment comparable to that of the in-person experience.

To access a PDF of the "Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course" poster, click here.
Description of the Poster
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment in a Synchronous, Flipped Course 
Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Department of Radiology, Division of Human Anatomy, College of Human Medicine
Alexis Amos, Michigan State University, Psychology Major, Senior 
ANTR 350 Goes Virtual 
ANTR 350, Human Gross Anatomy for Pre-Health Professionalsis an undergraduate course traditionally offered as large, in-person lecture sections on main campus and as a flipped, in-person section in Grand Rapids during summer semesters. 
When Michigan State University moved to online learning for summer 2020, the class was adapted to a Zoom-based, synchronous model. Students were required to complete online learning modules as preparation for each class. During class, students worked in small groups to complete application activities in Zoom breakout rooms. The move to online learning in response to COVID-19 brought both challenges and opportunities in terms of creating a collaborative learning environment.  
An online preparatory assignment was due at start of each class 


Readings interspersed with videos, interactive models, and questions 


Guided by specific learning objectives 


Variable number of questions but each assignment worth 2pts (total 11.2% of grade) 


Image: screenshot of a portion of a Top Hat Assignment titled "Preparatory Reading June 9". Some of the learning objectives and headings are shown. 
During class, students primarily collaborated in Zoom breakout rooms to review and apply the content covered in the preparatory assignment. The instructor moved between rooms to check on group progress and answer questions. Most in-class activities utilized Google docs or Top Hat, so the instructor could also observe group progress in real time. For most activities, keys were available during class so that groups did not end up stuck on any questions.  
10:00-10:03 Application prompt while people logged in, answers entered in zoom chat 
10:04-10:15 Synchronous, Top Hat-based Readiness Quiz, 5 questions 
10:15-11:45 Groupwork and mini-lectures* 
11:45-11:50 Post-class survey soliciting feedback on activities & overall session
Image: screenshot of example application exercise using Google Docs. A CT is shown on the right side of the image and a series of questions is shown on the left. Students answers to the questions are shown in blue. 
Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment 
The importance of developing teamwork skills was emphasized in the syllabus and during the course overview presentation. Students were given descriptions of five different group roles (leader, learner, time-keeper, recorder, and summarizer) and asked to try moving between the roles. Students were asked to read and agree to expectations for student interactions, including keeping camera on when possible, actively engaging with the group, agreeing not to take screenshots or record the session, and guidelines about private chats. The instructor acknowledged the awkwardness of working with strangers over zoom and asked all students to be generous of spirit with each other.  
A brief ice-breaker activity was assigned at the start of each unit to give students an opportunity to develop their collaborative learning relationships. After each unit, students were asked to give honest feedback to the instructor about each of their groupmates’ collaborative learning skills. Students received feedback summaries and recommendations about how to improve their collaborative skills at the end of units 1 and 3. Groups were also asked to set ground rules and group goals at the start of units 2 and 3. 
Image: screenshot of June 9 Top Hat In-Class Page. Activity 1 is an ice breaker for new groups. Activity 2 is an axial muscles google doc groupwork exercise. Activity 3 is the review of that google doc as a whole class and Activity 4 is setting Unit 2 goals. 
The importance of collaborative learning was emphasized by the inclusion of collaborative testing. Unit exams consisted of an individual exam followed immediately by the same exam taken in their groups. The group exam contributed 16.67% to each unit exam score.  
Student feedback was collected in SIRS, post-class, and post-course surveys 
Student Feedback 
Image: bar chart showing responses to "How many of your classmates that you did not know previously did you communicate with outside of class during the semester?" 


Fall 2019 (in-person section): Average of 1.3125 


Spring 2020 (Fall 2019 (in-person section until COVID moved asynchronous): Average of 1.2181 


Summer 2020 (sychronous zoom) 1.5625 


Fall 2020 (asynchronous online) 0.8082 


Image: bar chart showing response to "Overall, did you have someone you could reach out to if you struggled with content during this course?" 
Fall 2019 (in-person):  
Yes for all units 79.2% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 12.5% 
No, I never really did 8.3% 
Spring 2020 (mostly in-person) 
Yes for all units 67.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.3% 
No, I never really did 10.9% 
Summer 2020 (synchronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 81.3% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 0% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 6.2% 
No, I never really did 12.5% 
Fall 2020 (asychronous, virtual) 
Yes for all units 60.8% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 5.4% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 14.9% 
No, I never really did 18.9% 
Spring 2021 (asychronous, current course) 
Yes for all units 54.7% 
Yes, for 3 or 4 units 4.7% 
Yes, for 1 or two units 16.1% 
No, I never really did 24.5% 
Image: 100% Stacked Column Chart showing student responses to "How comfortable did you feel reaching out to a  course instructor if you struggled with content?" 
Fall 2019 
Extremely Comfortable 54% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 8% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 4% 
Spring 2020 
Extremely Comfortable 36% 
Somewhat comfortable 29% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 20% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 15% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Summer 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 87% 
Somewhat comfortable 0% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 13% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 0% 
Extremely uncomfortable 0% 
Fall 2020  
Extremely Comfortable 39% 
Somewhat comfortable 32% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 18% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 8% 
Extremely uncomfortable 3% 
Spring 2021  
Extremely Comfortable 35% 
Somewhat comfortable 30% 
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 30% 
Somewhat uncomfortable 4% 
Extremely uncomfortable 2% 
Image: Pie Chart Titled "Overall, how supported did you feel during this course compared to other courses you have taken?” (Summer 2020) 
Far above average is shown as 81%, Somewhat above average is shown as 13%, Average is shown as 6%. Somewhat below average and far below average are listed in the legend but not represented in the chart as they are 0% 
Conclusions 
Summer 2020 was a hard semester for everyone. We all faced many technological, health, and personal challenges during the semester. Despite these challenges, students demonstrated tremendous resilience and we were able to create a collaborative learning environment using Zoom breakout rooms. Overall, the course was a very positive experience; student performance and SIRS ratings were higher than during previous Summer iterations of the course. In addition, students felt more connected compared to the asynchronous Fall sections. 
Image: Table “Student Performance” 
Number of students enrolled in course:  
Summer 2019: 22 
Spring 2020: 338 
Summer 2020: 52 
Number of students withdrawn from course: 
Summer 2019: 0 
Spring 2020: 1 
Summer 2020: 0 
Mean percent score overall: 
Summer 2019: 82.85% 
Spring 2020: 90.19% 
Summer 2020: 89.03% 
Number of students with passing scores (2.0 or higher): 
Summer 2019: 20 
Spring 2020: 332 
Summer 2020: 50 
Number of students with failing scores (1.5 of lower): 
Summer 2019: 2 
Spring 2020: 4 
Summer 2020: 2 
Percentage of students with failing scores: 
Summer 2019: 9% 
Spring 2020: 1% 
Summer 2020: 3.8% 
Image: Results of MSU Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS)  
Summer 2019 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 55.5% 
Average 11.1% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 33.3% 
Above Average 44.4% 
Average 22.2% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Summer 2020 SIRS 
Course Organization 
Superior 70.9% 
Above Average 19.3% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 3.22% 
Inferior 0% 
Adequacy of the outlined direction of the course 
Superior 77.4% 
Above Average 16.1% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
Your general enjoyment of the course 
Superior 54.8% 
Above Average 38.7% 
Average 6.45% 
Below Average 0% 
Inferior 0% 
References 
Gaillard, Frank. “Acute Maxillary Sinusitis: Radiology Case.” Radiopaedia Blog RSS, radiopaedia.org/cases/acute-maxillary-sinusitis?lang=us.  
ANTR 350 Top Hat Course. www.tophat.com  
Acknowledgments  
A giant thank you to the ANTR 350 Summer Class of 2020!