We found 166 results that contain "conferences"
Posted on: Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation
JUSTICE AND BELONGING
Choosing a Physical Space: Accessible Presentations Guide
Accessible Presentations Guide
This article series provides an overview of pathways for delivering presentations, workshops, etc. for some of digital composition accessibility requirements. This is meant to serve as a starting place, rather than an end-all-be-all to access. Accessibility should be considered throughout all parts of the presentation design process, and designing accessible compositions benefits all people, not just those with disabilities. This article is the first of three in its series:
Choosing a Physical Space
Planning for Accessible Presentations
Delivering Accessible Presentations
Choosing a Physical Space
If you're not going to be presenting in a face-to-face modality, you can jump to the next article. Before reserving a physical space for the presentation, consider:
Food: If food will be provided, consider if there is a way for folks to serve themselves from a table without needing outside assistance. Additionally, avoid snacks and surface contamination from tree nuts, peanuts, gluten and seafood.
Lighting: The lighting in the room should be adequate and flexible. You may want to ask the following questions:
Are the lights able to be adjusted?
Is there adequate lighting for those that need more to see?
Is there the ability to turn off the glare near projector screens?
Are any of the lights flickering which may affect those with migraine or seizure disorders?
Pathways into Space: The pathways to get to and around the space should be flat (or ramped) and free from obstruction. The doorways should be able to be propped or automatic as well as large enough for mobility devices to enter.
Rest, Lactation, and Health Rooms: The space should be near and able to be navigated to without obstruction to lactation rooms, personal health rooms, restrooms with disability access, and an all-gender restroom.
Seating: The seating in the space is able to be moved for access to the tables. The seating should also have non-arm options to be flexible for different body types. The table heights (for both presenters and participants) should be between 28-34 inches from the floor.
Signage: The signage to the room and its location is easily perceivable and understandable, including the use of Braille. Emergency signage is not above eye height for those in wheelchairs.
Smells: Avoid a space that may have chemical or deep fragrances. Note that this may also mean that presenters should not wear scented items on days of the presentation.
Travel: The space should be with facilities that allow for disability parking. The elevators should be in working condition, and the path to the room should be unobstructed.
Technology: There is a working microphone and speaker in the room, preferably. If using digital technology, it should be able to be reached and accessible for the presenter as well as have the functionality for assistive devices (e.g., closed caption, Job Access with Speech (JAWS)).
Gratitudes and Resources for Accessible Presentations
The first iteration of this series came from the work of Raven Baugh and Bethany Meadows for the East Center Writing Center Association’s 2022 conference, sponsored by the Writing Center at Michigan State University.
Ada Hubrig’s 2021 "Conference on Community Writing Presentation Accessibility Guide"
Conference on College Composition and Communication’s 2024 "Conference Accessibility Guide"
Composing Access’ “Preparing Your Presentation”
Continue to the next article in this series, Planning for Accessible Presentations.This article, Accessible Presentations Guide: Choosing a Physical Space © 2024 by Bethany Meadows, is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. The cover photo for this article, "Earth Day Presentation" by NASA Goddard Photo and Video, is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
This article series provides an overview of pathways for delivering presentations, workshops, etc. for some of digital composition accessibility requirements. This is meant to serve as a starting place, rather than an end-all-be-all to access. Accessibility should be considered throughout all parts of the presentation design process, and designing accessible compositions benefits all people, not just those with disabilities. This article is the first of three in its series:
Choosing a Physical Space
Planning for Accessible Presentations
Delivering Accessible Presentations
Choosing a Physical Space
If you're not going to be presenting in a face-to-face modality, you can jump to the next article. Before reserving a physical space for the presentation, consider:
Food: If food will be provided, consider if there is a way for folks to serve themselves from a table without needing outside assistance. Additionally, avoid snacks and surface contamination from tree nuts, peanuts, gluten and seafood.
Lighting: The lighting in the room should be adequate and flexible. You may want to ask the following questions:
Are the lights able to be adjusted?
Is there adequate lighting for those that need more to see?
Is there the ability to turn off the glare near projector screens?
Are any of the lights flickering which may affect those with migraine or seizure disorders?
Pathways into Space: The pathways to get to and around the space should be flat (or ramped) and free from obstruction. The doorways should be able to be propped or automatic as well as large enough for mobility devices to enter.
Rest, Lactation, and Health Rooms: The space should be near and able to be navigated to without obstruction to lactation rooms, personal health rooms, restrooms with disability access, and an all-gender restroom.
Seating: The seating in the space is able to be moved for access to the tables. The seating should also have non-arm options to be flexible for different body types. The table heights (for both presenters and participants) should be between 28-34 inches from the floor.
Signage: The signage to the room and its location is easily perceivable and understandable, including the use of Braille. Emergency signage is not above eye height for those in wheelchairs.
Smells: Avoid a space that may have chemical or deep fragrances. Note that this may also mean that presenters should not wear scented items on days of the presentation.
Travel: The space should be with facilities that allow for disability parking. The elevators should be in working condition, and the path to the room should be unobstructed.
Technology: There is a working microphone and speaker in the room, preferably. If using digital technology, it should be able to be reached and accessible for the presenter as well as have the functionality for assistive devices (e.g., closed caption, Job Access with Speech (JAWS)).
Gratitudes and Resources for Accessible Presentations
The first iteration of this series came from the work of Raven Baugh and Bethany Meadows for the East Center Writing Center Association’s 2022 conference, sponsored by the Writing Center at Michigan State University.
Ada Hubrig’s 2021 "Conference on Community Writing Presentation Accessibility Guide"
Conference on College Composition and Communication’s 2024 "Conference Accessibility Guide"
Composing Access’ “Preparing Your Presentation”
Continue to the next article in this series, Planning for Accessible Presentations.This article, Accessible Presentations Guide: Choosing a Physical Space © 2024 by Bethany Meadows, is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. The cover photo for this article, "Earth Day Presentation" by NASA Goddard Photo and Video, is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Authored by:
Bethany Meadows
Posted on: Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation
Choosing a Physical Space: Accessible Presentations Guide
Accessible Presentations Guide
This article series provides an over...
This article series provides an over...
Authored by:
JUSTICE AND BELONGING
Monday, Jul 29, 2024
Posted on: #iteachmsu
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
SpartanQM - Online/Blended Course Peer-Review Process
Introduction
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. MSU purchased a campus subscription to the QM Rubric to assist faculty and instructors in creating quality courses that will improve online education and student learning. The initial pilot of using the rubric to inform course design started as an MSU partnership between the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, College of Arts & Letters, and MSU Information Technology. Currently, MSU maintains its full subscription status on a yearly basis which provides access to the fully annotated QM Rubric and the QM Course Review Management System (CRMS). Additionally, MSU IT Academic Technology consults with faculty and instructors on applying QM standards to their courses and developing new approaches in online and blended learning.
The MSU QM Course Review Process is a faculty-driven, peer review process that emphasizes continuous quality improvement. The QM reviewers experience and review a course from a student perspective and provide feedback based on the Quality Matters Standards. See IT Instructional Technology & Development for information about course development and see IT’s Academic Technology Service Catalog to learn more about QM at MSU.
Our course review process consists of three parts:
a self-review done by you to get familiar with the course review process on the MyQM system.
an internal review by a peer-reviewer to provide initial feedback on the course design.
after any necessary changes are made and the course has run, a copy of the course can undergo an official review conducted by a team of three QM Reviewers (Master Reviewer, Subject Matter Expert and one additional Reviewer) resulting in Quality Matters Certification [cost $1,000].
Whole programs can also be QM certified whose courses have been peer-reviewed. Information on QM program certification can be found on QM’s website.
Getting Started
Anyone at MSU can create an account through the Quality Matters website by using their msu.edu email address.
Quality Matters provides a fully annotated course standards rubric, different types of course reviews including a self-review, and discounted QM professional development through its website and MSU’s subscription.
Some of the Quality Matters resources involve added costs and official course reviews require MSU consultation first.
Course Rubric
The QM Rubric is a research-based peer review process that is widely adopted in higher education as a measure of online course quality. It offers weighted best practices in online instruction to improve course quality.
Visit the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition to download the rubric.
The rubric is helpful as a tool to consider what elements may be missing from an online or blended course or to generate suggestions for new features.
Self-Review First
Faculty and staff can use the fully annotated, self review materials, within the MyQM CRMS (Course Review Management System). Annotations explaining each standard in greater detail can be accessed within the Self Review tool after logging in to the QM site.
This unofficial self review is a way to become more familiar with QM standards or assess a course prior to an internal or official review. You can also do pre- and post- assessments of your courses to keep a record of improvements, and a private report can be emailed once completed.
What to expect in a peer-review?
The internal and official review are almost identical. Both generally consist of the following steps:
Pre-Review Discussion
Team chair (Lead Reviewer in an internal review) contacts review members and faculty member to set up a conference call or face-to-face meeting at the beginning of the review. The purpose of the conference call/meeting is to discuss the instructor worksheet, ensure that all members have access to the course, establish the team review timeline, and answer any questions from team members before the review begins.
Review Phase
The review begins. Each team member logs into the QM Rubric website and uses the online rubric tool to record their observations about the course. Remember that you are reviewing the course from the student’s perspective. If you have questions during the review, don’t hesitate to contact your team chair.
Post-Review Discussion
Upon completion of the review, the team chair will call for the final conference. This conference will be among the review team members to discuss any discrepancies in the review and to ensure that recommendations are helpful and effective. All individual reviews will be submitted after this meeting to compile the final report.
Post Review – Revise Course (as needed)
The team chair will submit the final review to the Campus QM Coordinator through the online QM tool. The review findings will be shared with the course instructor who then has an opportunity to respond to the review (using the course Amendment Form in the QM site). If the course does not yet meet standards, the faculty course developer/instructor works to bring the course to standards (with the assistance of an instructional designer, if desired). The review team chair then reviews the changes and determines whether or not the changes move the course to QM standards. In an internal review, revisions are made before submitting for an official review.
Steps for Internal Review
It is good practice to complete a self-review of your course before submitting for internal or official review. This is an optional step and only you see the self-review responses. For a self-review, log into the CRMS (Course Review Management System) on the QM website and use the Self Review tool to conduct a review of your own course.
When you are ready to submit a course for internal review:
Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response.
Make a copy of your course to be reviewed.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.
Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select Internal Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the worksheet once it is approved.
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews: Open Course Reviews
Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
When finished, click “Submit Complete Worksheet.”
Your course will automatically be assigned to a Lead Reviewer who will contact you regarding the course review.
After your review, you may make any necessary changes to your QM Review course as a result of the internal review.
This review is an unofficial course review that provides feedback on meeting the QM Standards before submitting for QM recognition.
Steps for Official Review
When the course is ready for the official review:
Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response.
Faculty will use the updated copy of the course that was used in the internal review.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.
Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select QM-Managed Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the Course Worksheet once it is approved.
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews, Open Course Reviews.
Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
If you completed an internal review inside the CRMS, you can copy your internal review worksheet.
MSU staff will add the QM review team to the QM Review Course. This can take up to two weeks.
The Course Representative (faculty course developer/instructor) meets virtually or by phone with the QM review team for a pre-review meeting.
A QM Review is scheduled for a 4-6 week review period, which includes approximately 3 weeks of actual review time in addition to pre- and post-review conference calls.
The QM Team Chair will submit the final report which will be sent to the Course Representative.
Once the standards are met, Quality Matters recognition is provided to the Course Representative and the course is listed in the QM Recognized Courses registry.
Recertification Review
Certified courses are reviewed and re-certified after five years.
Resource Links
QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition
QM at MSU Community: Faculty and staff at MSU can join this D2L Community site to learn more about the QM Rubric, discounted professional development, and course examples for meeting standards.
Quality Matters website: Create an account using your msu.edu email and access the self-review tools on the MyQM site.
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. MSU purchased a campus subscription to the QM Rubric to assist faculty and instructors in creating quality courses that will improve online education and student learning. The initial pilot of using the rubric to inform course design started as an MSU partnership between the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, College of Arts & Letters, and MSU Information Technology. Currently, MSU maintains its full subscription status on a yearly basis which provides access to the fully annotated QM Rubric and the QM Course Review Management System (CRMS). Additionally, MSU IT Academic Technology consults with faculty and instructors on applying QM standards to their courses and developing new approaches in online and blended learning.
The MSU QM Course Review Process is a faculty-driven, peer review process that emphasizes continuous quality improvement. The QM reviewers experience and review a course from a student perspective and provide feedback based on the Quality Matters Standards. See IT Instructional Technology & Development for information about course development and see IT’s Academic Technology Service Catalog to learn more about QM at MSU.
Our course review process consists of three parts:
a self-review done by you to get familiar with the course review process on the MyQM system.
an internal review by a peer-reviewer to provide initial feedback on the course design.
after any necessary changes are made and the course has run, a copy of the course can undergo an official review conducted by a team of three QM Reviewers (Master Reviewer, Subject Matter Expert and one additional Reviewer) resulting in Quality Matters Certification [cost $1,000].
Whole programs can also be QM certified whose courses have been peer-reviewed. Information on QM program certification can be found on QM’s website.
Getting Started
Anyone at MSU can create an account through the Quality Matters website by using their msu.edu email address.
Quality Matters provides a fully annotated course standards rubric, different types of course reviews including a self-review, and discounted QM professional development through its website and MSU’s subscription.
Some of the Quality Matters resources involve added costs and official course reviews require MSU consultation first.
Course Rubric
The QM Rubric is a research-based peer review process that is widely adopted in higher education as a measure of online course quality. It offers weighted best practices in online instruction to improve course quality.
Visit the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition to download the rubric.
The rubric is helpful as a tool to consider what elements may be missing from an online or blended course or to generate suggestions for new features.
Self-Review First
Faculty and staff can use the fully annotated, self review materials, within the MyQM CRMS (Course Review Management System). Annotations explaining each standard in greater detail can be accessed within the Self Review tool after logging in to the QM site.
This unofficial self review is a way to become more familiar with QM standards or assess a course prior to an internal or official review. You can also do pre- and post- assessments of your courses to keep a record of improvements, and a private report can be emailed once completed.
What to expect in a peer-review?
The internal and official review are almost identical. Both generally consist of the following steps:
Pre-Review Discussion
Team chair (Lead Reviewer in an internal review) contacts review members and faculty member to set up a conference call or face-to-face meeting at the beginning of the review. The purpose of the conference call/meeting is to discuss the instructor worksheet, ensure that all members have access to the course, establish the team review timeline, and answer any questions from team members before the review begins.
Review Phase
The review begins. Each team member logs into the QM Rubric website and uses the online rubric tool to record their observations about the course. Remember that you are reviewing the course from the student’s perspective. If you have questions during the review, don’t hesitate to contact your team chair.
Post-Review Discussion
Upon completion of the review, the team chair will call for the final conference. This conference will be among the review team members to discuss any discrepancies in the review and to ensure that recommendations are helpful and effective. All individual reviews will be submitted after this meeting to compile the final report.
Post Review – Revise Course (as needed)
The team chair will submit the final review to the Campus QM Coordinator through the online QM tool. The review findings will be shared with the course instructor who then has an opportunity to respond to the review (using the course Amendment Form in the QM site). If the course does not yet meet standards, the faculty course developer/instructor works to bring the course to standards (with the assistance of an instructional designer, if desired). The review team chair then reviews the changes and determines whether or not the changes move the course to QM standards. In an internal review, revisions are made before submitting for an official review.
Steps for Internal Review
It is good practice to complete a self-review of your course before submitting for internal or official review. This is an optional step and only you see the self-review responses. For a self-review, log into the CRMS (Course Review Management System) on the QM website and use the Self Review tool to conduct a review of your own course.
When you are ready to submit a course for internal review:
Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response.
Make a copy of your course to be reviewed.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.
Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select Internal Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the worksheet once it is approved.
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews: Open Course Reviews
Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
When finished, click “Submit Complete Worksheet.”
Your course will automatically be assigned to a Lead Reviewer who will contact you regarding the course review.
After your review, you may make any necessary changes to your QM Review course as a result of the internal review.
This review is an unofficial course review that provides feedback on meeting the QM Standards before submitting for QM recognition.
Steps for Official Review
When the course is ready for the official review:
Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response.
Faculty will use the updated copy of the course that was used in the internal review.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.
Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select QM-Managed Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the Course Worksheet once it is approved.
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews, Open Course Reviews.
Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
If you completed an internal review inside the CRMS, you can copy your internal review worksheet.
MSU staff will add the QM review team to the QM Review Course. This can take up to two weeks.
The Course Representative (faculty course developer/instructor) meets virtually or by phone with the QM review team for a pre-review meeting.
A QM Review is scheduled for a 4-6 week review period, which includes approximately 3 weeks of actual review time in addition to pre- and post-review conference calls.
The QM Team Chair will submit the final report which will be sent to the Course Representative.
Once the standards are met, Quality Matters recognition is provided to the Course Representative and the course is listed in the QM Recognized Courses registry.
Recertification Review
Certified courses are reviewed and re-certified after five years.
Resource Links
QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition
QM at MSU Community: Faculty and staff at MSU can join this D2L Community site to learn more about the QM Rubric, discounted professional development, and course examples for meeting standards.
Quality Matters website: Create an account using your msu.edu email and access the self-review tools on the MyQM site.
Authored by:
Dave Goodrich
Posted on: #iteachmsu
SpartanQM - Online/Blended Course Peer-Review Process
Introduction
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, facul...
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, facul...
Authored by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Multimodal Blended Events Handbook — Overview (Part 1 of 14)
The pandemic presented several challenges across the landscape of academia. Continuity for classrooms, events, and conference were an absolute must, but there was a need to advance beyond our prior modes of operation. We answered the call over the past year, but now realize that it is in our best interest to plan for the possibility of hybrid and virtual events going forward. Most notably, embracing proper strategies can help foster a strong user-centered approach for said events.
Knowing that preparedness yields tremendous dividends for the institution, staff, and participants, The Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology is happy to present a new set of guidelines to support planning efforts for future events. The guidelines are divided into two groups: 1) Strategy and Empathy and 2) Execution. The first group will help establish a strong foundation for your event, while the second group helps streamline execution of how the event will be experienced.
The two groups are presented in this document as follows:
Strategy & Empathy
Vision & Purpose
Understanding Attendees
The Benefits of Design Sprints
Execution
Event Promotion
Event Structure
Engagement Opportunities
Virtual Solutions
Accessibility
Evaluation
You can also download the full document here.Also, to help support your efforts and to help you keep track of progress, a checklist is included on the last page. Happy planning!
Knowing that preparedness yields tremendous dividends for the institution, staff, and participants, The Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology is happy to present a new set of guidelines to support planning efforts for future events. The guidelines are divided into two groups: 1) Strategy and Empathy and 2) Execution. The first group will help establish a strong foundation for your event, while the second group helps streamline execution of how the event will be experienced.
The two groups are presented in this document as follows:
Strategy & Empathy
Vision & Purpose
Understanding Attendees
The Benefits of Design Sprints
Execution
Event Promotion
Event Structure
Engagement Opportunities
Virtual Solutions
Accessibility
Evaluation
You can also download the full document here.Also, to help support your efforts and to help you keep track of progress, a checklist is included on the last page. Happy planning!
Authored by:
Darren Hood
Posted on: Spring Conference on Teaching & Learning
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Exploring Inclusive Practices Across the Curriculum: Results from the Inclusive Pedagogy Fellows...
Title: Exploring Inclusive Practices Across the Curriculum: Results from the Inclusive Pedagogy Fellows Program in the College of Arts & Letters at MSUPresenters: Kathryn McEwenCo-Presenters: Denise Acevedo (WRAC); Catalina Bartlett (WRAC); Cheryl Caesar (WRAC); Jonathan Choti (LiLaC); Rebecca Cifaldi (AAHD); Caitlin Cornell (CeLTA); Sonja Fritzsche (CAL); Ural Grant (Theatre); Joyce Meier (WRAC); Ayman Mohamed (LiLaC), Karen Moroski-Rigney (CAL), Shannon Quinn (LiLaC)Date: May 11th, 2023Time: 2:45 pm - 3:45 pmClick here to viewDescription: We propose a workshop to share and discuss the activities of the College of Arts & Letters Inclusive Pedagogy Fellows Program from AY 2022-2023. The CAL Inclusive Pedagogy Fellows (IPF) Program provides a proactive collaborative space for a cohort of educators seeking to design, establish, and maintain intersectional and inclusive learning environments in their teaching and curriculum development activities. Ten Fellows from 3 units across CAL came together to explore and engage with inclusive pedagogies from a variety of perspectives and disciplinary approaches, and to focus on different ways of knowing, trauma-informed, translingual, and transcultural pedagogies, and intersectionality. Aligning with the conference focus on community, conversation and classroom experiences, we propose a roundtable session for Fellows to reflect on their experience in the program, share their take-aways on facilitating inclusive practices in the classroom, and discuss concrete strategies for creating more inclusive learning environments. We envision this workshop as an interactive conversation about what the Fellows learned, how they applied new knowledge and skills, and where they want to go next in their inclusive pedagogy practices. Participants are invited to engage with the workshop participants and enhance the strategies Fellows plan to implement. The roundtable will consist of Fellows from the program. Post-presentation outcomes for participants include leaving the session with some initial first steps and strategies for implementing inclusive practices. Using the roundtable format, we aim to facilitate interactive discussion across disciplines.
Authored by:
Kathryn McEwen
Posted on: #iteachmsu
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Congratulations 2024 AT&T Award Winners!
2024 AT&T Awards for Excellence in Teaching with Technology
This awards program, generously funded by AT&T, recognizes outstanding contributions to the use and development of information technology for teaching and learning in courses at Michigan State University. These educators are recognized as campus leaders in contributing to student success through technology integration and enhancement in their courses.The Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation would like to extend joyful congratulations and deep gratitude for the three educators selected this year. They expemplify not only great uses of technology to enhance teaching and learning, but also commitments to the success of learners, engagement in MSU communities, and their own lifelong learning. Learn more about each of the award recipients and their pedagogical contributions by clicking their names below and checking out their nomination videos. Brittany Dillman, College of Education's MAET & MALXD Graduate Certificate Program Director & CTLI Affiliate!Isaac Record, Lyman Briggs College Associate Teaching Professor in Science and SocietyKristy Kellom, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources' School of Planning, Design and Construction Instructor in Interior DesignIndividual MSU faculty, instructors, teaching assistants and staff, or teams of faculty and staff, are eligible to submit practices that use technology to enhance their teaching. Nominations are peer-reviewed by a committee of faculty and staff, which gives due regard to MSU’s commitment to diversity and accessibility, as well as the university’s commitment to outstanding instruction and effective design and technology integration.Michigan State University’s AT&T Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award benefits the winners by conferring peer reviewed recognition. The competition also benefits the larger MSU community because it highlights inspiring and innovative approaches to blended and fully online learning. The disciplinary expertise of applicants and judges reflect the diversity of majors and colleges at MSU.Information on the awards, nomination review rubric, and an archive of past winners can be accessed on the MSU AT&T Awards webpage (link opens in new window).
This awards program, generously funded by AT&T, recognizes outstanding contributions to the use and development of information technology for teaching and learning in courses at Michigan State University. These educators are recognized as campus leaders in contributing to student success through technology integration and enhancement in their courses.The Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation would like to extend joyful congratulations and deep gratitude for the three educators selected this year. They expemplify not only great uses of technology to enhance teaching and learning, but also commitments to the success of learners, engagement in MSU communities, and their own lifelong learning. Learn more about each of the award recipients and their pedagogical contributions by clicking their names below and checking out their nomination videos. Brittany Dillman, College of Education's MAET & MALXD Graduate Certificate Program Director & CTLI Affiliate!Isaac Record, Lyman Briggs College Associate Teaching Professor in Science and SocietyKristy Kellom, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources' School of Planning, Design and Construction Instructor in Interior DesignIndividual MSU faculty, instructors, teaching assistants and staff, or teams of faculty and staff, are eligible to submit practices that use technology to enhance their teaching. Nominations are peer-reviewed by a committee of faculty and staff, which gives due regard to MSU’s commitment to diversity and accessibility, as well as the university’s commitment to outstanding instruction and effective design and technology integration.Michigan State University’s AT&T Excellence in Teaching with Technology Award benefits the winners by conferring peer reviewed recognition. The competition also benefits the larger MSU community because it highlights inspiring and innovative approaches to blended and fully online learning. The disciplinary expertise of applicants and judges reflect the diversity of majors and colleges at MSU.Information on the awards, nomination review rubric, and an archive of past winners can be accessed on the MSU AT&T Awards webpage (link opens in new window).
Posted by:
Makena Neal
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Congratulations 2024 AT&T Award Winners!
2024 AT&T Awards for Excellence in Teaching with Technology
Thi...
Thi...
Posted by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Tuesday, Mar 19, 2024
Posted on: #iteachmsu Educator Awards
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
#iteachmsu Educator Awards
What are the #iteachmsu Awards?
Gratitude is so important especially for the wide educator community (including but not limited to faculty, GTAs, ULAs, instructional designers, academic advisors, librarians, coaches, etc.) who help support learning across MSU. At #iteachmsu, we believe in elevating, recognizing, and celebrating those contributions is vital. The #iteachmsu Educator Awards are dedicated to honoring individuals who have been recognized through the Thank an Educator initiative. This is a simple but important act of saying thank you and recognizing the great work of educator colleagues across campus. To learn more about Thank an Educator more broadly check out this #iteachmsu article and this MSU Today article!
Why do the Awards exist?
While the collaborating units and the #iteachmsu project team are excited about the aforementioned “wide educator community”, we have found through informational interviews and observations (as well as conversations with our diverse advisory group and content contributors) that individuals across roles that contribute to the teaching and learning mission of the university may not personally identify as educators. We established the Thank an Educator initiative and are recognizing those individuals with the #iteachmsu Educator Awards to:
help demonstrate the diversity of educators across roles on campus
help individuals associate their name/work with “educator” and embrace their educator identity
celebrate the amazing individuals we have shaping the learning experiences and success of students on our campus.
How are #iteachmsu Educator Award recipients recognized?
In the inaugural year of the #iteachmsu Educator Awards (2019) a brief ceremony and casual reception were held as a conclusion to the Spring Conference on Teaching, Learning, and Student Success. Awardees were designated with a flag on their name tags and picked up their #iteachmsu Educator Award certificates (along with their nomination stories) at reception with food and drink. Dr. Jeff Grabill, Associate Provost at the time, gave a brief welcome and introduction to some of the foundations of #iteachmsu. Then former Provost Youatt concluded the formal portion of the ceremony with congratulations and thoughts on the importance of educator work.
The global pandemic and resulting remote work (2020-21) forced us to think differently about how to hold public events, and while the shift was challenging and uncomfortable at times we have emerged with a way to uplift #iteachmsu Educator Award recipients in a more public way. Instead of a small reception, recognized individuals are being recognized publically via articles here on iteach.msu.edu. They each receive the same Educator Award materials- which are distributed digitally.
How can you submit an educator for an #iteachmsu Educator Award?
Anyone can recognize a fellow Spartan for their contributions to MSU's teaching and learning mission or for how they made a lasting impression on your experience. All you have to do is click "Thank an Educator" in the left panel of iteach.msu.edu. From there you'll see a short form where you can enter the name, netID, and a short story of the educator you'd like to recognize.
updated 06/23/2021
Gratitude is so important especially for the wide educator community (including but not limited to faculty, GTAs, ULAs, instructional designers, academic advisors, librarians, coaches, etc.) who help support learning across MSU. At #iteachmsu, we believe in elevating, recognizing, and celebrating those contributions is vital. The #iteachmsu Educator Awards are dedicated to honoring individuals who have been recognized through the Thank an Educator initiative. This is a simple but important act of saying thank you and recognizing the great work of educator colleagues across campus. To learn more about Thank an Educator more broadly check out this #iteachmsu article and this MSU Today article!
Why do the Awards exist?
While the collaborating units and the #iteachmsu project team are excited about the aforementioned “wide educator community”, we have found through informational interviews and observations (as well as conversations with our diverse advisory group and content contributors) that individuals across roles that contribute to the teaching and learning mission of the university may not personally identify as educators. We established the Thank an Educator initiative and are recognizing those individuals with the #iteachmsu Educator Awards to:
help demonstrate the diversity of educators across roles on campus
help individuals associate their name/work with “educator” and embrace their educator identity
celebrate the amazing individuals we have shaping the learning experiences and success of students on our campus.
How are #iteachmsu Educator Award recipients recognized?
In the inaugural year of the #iteachmsu Educator Awards (2019) a brief ceremony and casual reception were held as a conclusion to the Spring Conference on Teaching, Learning, and Student Success. Awardees were designated with a flag on their name tags and picked up their #iteachmsu Educator Award certificates (along with their nomination stories) at reception with food and drink. Dr. Jeff Grabill, Associate Provost at the time, gave a brief welcome and introduction to some of the foundations of #iteachmsu. Then former Provost Youatt concluded the formal portion of the ceremony with congratulations and thoughts on the importance of educator work.
The global pandemic and resulting remote work (2020-21) forced us to think differently about how to hold public events, and while the shift was challenging and uncomfortable at times we have emerged with a way to uplift #iteachmsu Educator Award recipients in a more public way. Instead of a small reception, recognized individuals are being recognized publically via articles here on iteach.msu.edu. They each receive the same Educator Award materials- which are distributed digitally.
How can you submit an educator for an #iteachmsu Educator Award?
Anyone can recognize a fellow Spartan for their contributions to MSU's teaching and learning mission or for how they made a lasting impression on your experience. All you have to do is click "Thank an Educator" in the left panel of iteach.msu.edu. From there you'll see a short form where you can enter the name, netID, and a short story of the educator you'd like to recognize.
updated 06/23/2021
Authored by:
Makena Neal
Posted on: #iteachmsu Educator Awards
#iteachmsu Educator Awards
What are the #iteachmsu Awards?
Gratitude is so important especiall...
Gratitude is so important especiall...
Authored by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Tuesday, Jul 20, 2021
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Data
Definition
Count
The total number of students enrolled at MSU as of official count date. Students who are enrolled, registered, cancelled or withdrawn are included in the counts.
Persistence
The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of the previous year and returned to MSU for their first returning fall semester.
Probation
The percentage of FTIAC undergraduate (UN only, does not include Ag Tech) students who started at MSU in the fall, or in the summer and continued in the fall, who have a fall end term academic standing of probation.
Graduation
The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of a given year and graduated within 150 percent of normal time (three years for AT certificate-seeking students, and six years for degree seeking UN).
Degrees Awarded
Degrees, Agricultural Technology Certificates, and Graduate Certificates conferred. This is reported annually: fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), calendar year, and academic year. Count reflects degrees or certificates conferred in the prior semester or year.
Time to Degree
Time to degree, measured in calendar years, is determined by calculating the number of calendar years between the start date of a student’s initial term and the end date of the term in which the student graduates. The TTD for graduating in four years is 3.7 calendar years, e.g. a student starts MSU in Fall 2014 and graduates in Spring 2018.
Institutional Research website: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/index.html
Data Digest: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/datadigest/index.html
Fact Sheets: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/msu-internal/factsheets.html
Data and When It’s Available
Data
Definition
Count
The total number of students enrolled at MSU as of official count date. Students who are enrolled, registered, cancelled or withdrawn are included in the counts.
Persistence
The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of the previous year and returned to MSU for their first returning fall semester.
Probation
The percentage of FTIAC undergraduate (UN only, does not include Ag Tech) students who started at MSU in the fall, or in the summer and continued in the fall, who have a fall end term academic standing of probation.
Graduation
The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of a given year and graduated within 150 percent of normal time (three years for AT certificate-seeking students, and six years for degree seeking UN).
Degrees Awarded
Degrees, Agricultural Technology Certificates, and Graduate Certificates conferred. This is reported annually: fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), calendar year, and academic year. Count reflects degrees or certificates conferred in the prior semester or year.
Time to Degree
Time to degree, measured in calendar years, is determined by calculating the number of calendar years between the start date of a student’s initial term and the end date of the term in which the student graduates. The TTD for graduating in four years is 3.7 calendar years, e.g. a student starts MSU in Fall 2014 and graduates in Spring 2018.
Institutional Research website: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/index.html
Data Digest: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/datadigest/index.html
Fact Sheets: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/msu-internal/factsheets.html
Authored by:
Bethan Cantwell
Posted on: Teaching Toolkit Tailgate
Data
Definition
Count
The total number of...
Data and When It’s Available
Data
Definition
Count
The total number of...
Authored by:
NAVIGATING CONTEXT
Thursday, Jul 30, 2020
Posted on: #iteachmsu
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Spartan Studios: Research and Next Steps
ResearchThis is the eighth article in our iTeach.MSU playlist for the Spartan Studios Playkit.
There are many potential approaches to research connected to teaching a Spartan Studios course. These include:
Disciplinary research inspired by the course
Novel methods, insights, theories, applications, or results inspired by activity in the course that fall within one instructor’s discipline. For example, a student team comes up with a new approach to solving a packaging problem. The packaging faculty member works with those students to write up and publish this innovation.
Studying institutional or student success outcomes
Education research on your pedagogical methods and processes
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) or Disciplinary‐Based Education Research (DBER) about student learning outcomes.
Research into student teamwork (for example, by analyzing student communication networks)
Research on partner or community impacts and outcomes
See our Appendix for examples of research about Studios and other similar experiential courses
▶️Plan ahead with your team for the kinds of research you’re interested in pursuing. There may be relevant data to collect during the semester, including classroom observations, student interviews/surveys, or specific assignment designs. You will also need to obtain institutional approval as well as consent from students and/or external partners to include their data in your research.
🔧MSU’s Office of Research and Innovation has resources for faculty members to get started on a research project, involving undergraduate students in research projects, and more.
🔧The Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology has been conducting research on several Studios courses and can share our experiences in that area.
Next Steps
For more information about any of this material or to find out how you can teach your own Spartan Studios course, contact the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology (hub@msu.edu). We offer yearly workshops on planning and pedagogy for Studios courses and can consult with any interested units or faculty members. You are welcome to watch our workshop from the Spring Conference on Teaching, Learning, and Student Success (May 7, 2021) where faculty heard more about teaching Spartan Studios courses, got feedback on ideas for course designs, and heard from instructors who have already taught a Studio course.Photo by hannah grace on Unsplash
There are many potential approaches to research connected to teaching a Spartan Studios course. These include:
Disciplinary research inspired by the course
Novel methods, insights, theories, applications, or results inspired by activity in the course that fall within one instructor’s discipline. For example, a student team comes up with a new approach to solving a packaging problem. The packaging faculty member works with those students to write up and publish this innovation.
Studying institutional or student success outcomes
Education research on your pedagogical methods and processes
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) or Disciplinary‐Based Education Research (DBER) about student learning outcomes.
Research into student teamwork (for example, by analyzing student communication networks)
Research on partner or community impacts and outcomes
See our Appendix for examples of research about Studios and other similar experiential courses
▶️Plan ahead with your team for the kinds of research you’re interested in pursuing. There may be relevant data to collect during the semester, including classroom observations, student interviews/surveys, or specific assignment designs. You will also need to obtain institutional approval as well as consent from students and/or external partners to include their data in your research.
🔧MSU’s Office of Research and Innovation has resources for faculty members to get started on a research project, involving undergraduate students in research projects, and more.
🔧The Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology has been conducting research on several Studios courses and can share our experiences in that area.
Next Steps
For more information about any of this material or to find out how you can teach your own Spartan Studios course, contact the Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology (hub@msu.edu). We offer yearly workshops on planning and pedagogy for Studios courses and can consult with any interested units or faculty members. You are welcome to watch our workshop from the Spring Conference on Teaching, Learning, and Student Success (May 7, 2021) where faculty heard more about teaching Spartan Studios courses, got feedback on ideas for course designs, and heard from instructors who have already taught a Studio course.Photo by hannah grace on Unsplash
Authored by:
Ellie Louson
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Spartan Studios: Research and Next Steps
ResearchThis is the eighth article in our iTeach.MSU playlist for t...
Authored by:
PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Tuesday, Jun 22, 2021