We found 194 results that contain "digital presence"

Many course readings are already provided at MSU as digital content or in books that students have purchased. If you have any materials that are only available as physical hard copies and which students do not already own, please contact the library in order to develop a digital strategy. 
 
There is a central page for services for online and off campus students and faculty. Services include mailing library books directly to you or your students, troubleshooting Libraries e-resources and databases, and help creating stable links to those resources.   
 
Subject specialist librarians are happy to help find library resources for your classes and to get those materials linked in D2L for your students. One of the easiest ways to provide this assistance is for you to make your subject specialist librarian an editor in your course. To find your subject librarian, please see our list at https://lib.msu.edu/contact/subjectlibrarian. Librarians are also happy to discuss any other ways that they can support your teaching and learning needs. 
 
Their Course Materials program can help if you have materials that need to be transitioned from print to digital. Please use the form at https://forms.gle/7GxNYeKsqTNxNRVR8 to facilitate the scanning of current materials on print reserves.
 
Interlibrary loan access will continue to be provided. The Library will provide desktop delivery and mail materials to you if needed, plus they have reference services available for students and faculty via chat, 24/7: https://lib.msu.edu/contact/askalib/. 
 
For more detailed information on the library please visit https://lib.msu.edu/covid19message/. As of March 16, all libraries in the State of Michigan have been closed, including MSU's. Materials in most of our locations can be paged by using the "Get It Now" button in the catalog. We will mail materials that can be paged to faculty, staff and students as needed. Many virtual services and resources remain available.
 
We encourage you to visit the MSU Libraries website and visit their Online and Distance Learning Resource page.

Summary of CT&LI Summit Engagements
This report summarizes data gathered from the Center for Teaching and Learning (CT&LI) Kick-off Summit [held on Jan. 14, 2022] and following asynchronous engagement opportunities, as well as concurrent discussions within the center about space and services to directly address the questions in our charge. To read more about the Kick-off Summit, check out "Reflecting on the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation Kick-off Summit".

What factors should we consider when deciding where responsibility lies?




Aligning what is already in place; what units / local-level are already doing well.
How the Center and IT (particularly Academic Tech unit) work together.
How to ensure best use and highest purpose for any given resource.




What are the greatest areas of priority for increased collaboration and focus with regard to teaching and learning?




Development of service portfolio and communicating broadly/transparently (adjusting according to ongoing listening/feedback from users + assessment)

What are the demands/needs of educators? What are current/proposed services in the network? Evaluate gaps relative to current staffing. 

Developing “the network” across campus

Developing and maintaining directories of available people, resources and services. Making opportunities for affiliation with the center explicit.





What are our highest areas of need for investment in new skills and expertise, regardless of where those skills are placed




Needed investment in distributed staffing to meet the needs of faculty in colleges/departments/units that may not be as robustly staffed as others in areas/services that the center will not be able to cover (e.g. course assistance).
Evaluation, assessment, feedback, and educational research.
Educator development programming and instructional consultative practitioners.




What models would you see as most effective for increased local support in those colleges or units that currently would not be able to participate in a networked model?




Liaison model, assigning center staff to units, if we add/repurpose positions.
Joint appointments and fellowships, if the center is willing to co-sponsor.
Sponsored work or partial buy-out of educators to augment center staffing.




What design engagements might come after the summit? For instance, to determine the center’s services, design its space, or develop a collaborative model for the network?



Faculty (in process), instructor, and additional educator stakeholder engagement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups.
Evaluation of available center skills, capabilities and available capacities.
Service design exercises specific to individual service portfolio items.
Engagement with IT to coordinate and co-design shared client experience.
Possible direct engagement with MSU students or student-educators (GTAs & ULAs)


Data Highlights
Services and Support Portfolio 

Services

Responsive, point-of-need support, including individual consultations
Curriculum and program development
Course design / reform support and incubation
Development and training on various topics at various levels
Catalog of what to get where, and a directory to find people/expertise
Formal structure for online/hybrid course/program development and support

Space

Spaces that support delivery of training, hosting events, social gatherings
A place with presence to host and build the community of educators
Classroom space to experiment, innovate, and create digital experiences

“faculty can do one offs in a space to try something different with a class”
“technology to check out to use in classrooms (like VR or other tools)”
“space for recording teaching and support for editing”


Additional notes on physical space (data in evaluation re: Hub spaces not 1/14 Summit)

Dedicated desks for center staff, with mix of hot-seating / hotelling
Allows clients to meet with center consultants in semi-private settings
Variety of co-working spaces that enables part-time projects teams to gather
Small-group meeting spaces, high-flex tech enabled for remote participants
Individual booths to isolate noise from remote meetings from clients / coworkers


Connection and Collaboration

Hosting of events for collegiality, fellowship, networking and community building


Collaborative programming



Discipline specific or with faculty experts in certain pedagogies or approaches
With other central parties, e.g. MSU IT, DEI, Academic HR, student success, etc.
With faculty learning communities or administrative groups (e.g. online programs)

Sponsored institutional memberships and global virtual conference access for campus
Hosted and invited outside experts, presenters, and seminars or workshops
Fellowships for faculty with benefits for center, network, and the faculty fellow
Fellowships for graduate students that help them develop and gain hiring advantage
Opportunity for faculty/staff to affiliate with the center to encourage boundary-spanning

Teaching and Learning in Practice

Advocacy, leadership narratives, and communicative storytelling that elevate the importance of teaching and learning excellence at every level
Assessment, visibility, and recognition of teaching and learning
Emphasis on and recognition of teaching and learning in tenure and promotion

incentivizing teaching and learning efforts and allocation of time and talent

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL)

Additional Data Details (optional)
Wouldn’t It be Fantastic If (WIFI)
Description of Activity
In this activity the participants were asked to identify blue sky ideas to ultimately group into common themes and inform shared vision for the Center, Network, Teaching and Learning. Participants individually answered the prompt “Wouldn’t it be fantastic if (WIFI) … as many times as they could. Then in small groups, organized statements to show what might be influenced, controlled or created by the Center, Network, or Teaching and Learning. 
Stakeholders raised a variety of needs, which were categorized as ed-tech support, resources, staffing, space, as well as coordination/planning. Building a network for these services seems to be something participants hope for, such as a “shared list of experts across campus to make finding the right person to ask easier”. Additionally, this item “explicit partnerships and shared services between the teaching center and other key support units,” speaks to the network.. When it comes to specific services, support for DEI in instruction, fostering innovative practices, instructional design, and pedagogy were among those most frequently mentioned. Consulting, training and events are delivery formats most often associated with the center. 
The most common themes can be found here: WIFI Themes 
What the Center should provide: Services, Space, Coordination

Services: Consulting, special projects to solve common problems, access to experts, and intramural grants / sponsorships.
A space to provide access to services and resources, and invite educators to gatherings.
Coordination of services and facilitation of collaboration between units and people.

E.g. Educator showcase, repository/ a knowledge-base, and events calendar for all offerings across the university

Opportunities for part-time affiliation to center, as fellows, or to staff services or projects.
Classroom space to innovate and create digital experiences

“where faculty can do one offs in a space to try something different with a class”
“technology to check out to use in classrooms (like VR or other tools)”
“space for recording teaching and support for editing”


What the Educator Network should provide: Coordination, Collaboration, Networking

Coordinate the Educator Network with participation of center and other stakeholders

Allow for collaboration and self-organizing
Recognition to colleagues who contribute

Functional network, depended on by clients (needs) and university (commissioned work)

Maintain a “list of experts”, make it easier to find “the right people” to ask.

Opportunities for learning space experimentation, in prototype classrooms and digital.

What the whole University should support in T&L: Services, Pedagogy Practices, EdTech
In this section, some participants understood Teaching and Learning as how it is viewed and supported by the administration, while others provided more specific ideas around teaching resources and services   

Services and resources should be shared in a variety of ways and rather than being siloed all units should work together bringing the following together as shown in this quote “More collaboration and breaking down silos”

Creating a Network of experts coming from all units
Have connection points to colleges and “cross-college work” and working groups
Provide university funding for projects, “awards, innovation grants” for T&L.
“Both/And approach to broad everyone should know AND specific ideas in the disciplines or colleges”, perhaps with the center being more active in the former and the college more active in the latter such as DBER.

All educators may contribute and share pedagogy/best practices in peer-support.
Other supports include and may recognize needs of stakeholders: quality standards, DEI (including opportunities and accessibility), educational technology, and sponsored research such as SoTL, and those not typically included in educator support. 
There should be tangible appreciation of the work of educators in Teaching and Learning, including leadership narratives and recognition for RPT.

What I need from you… 
The What I Need From You  (WINFY) activity asked participants to assume one of five roles, randomly assigned. These included Academic Unit Administrators, Faculty and Instructors, Center Affiliated Staff, College Affiliated Staff, and University-Wide Staff.
Each group was asked to outline what they needed from each of the other four groups to be successful in their roles. The following themes emerged from each of the groups, pointing to commonalities among groups about what each would like to see from the Center.
Services and Support Portfolio
A clear and concise services and support portfolio emerged as a major theme. All five groups said that services and support portfolio was what they needed- both as stakeholders in the center, as center staff working with those stakeholders, and those who were potential partners and patrons of the center. The services and support portfolio -of what the Center provides, what it can offer to help with course design, instructional design, and various other activities, and how to contact and use the center was foundational for all five groups.
Participants in the WINFY activity wanted to have clear definitions of roles and resources of the center; clearer collaboration with college faculty and staff on projects and programs; a better understanding of what types of questions can be referred to the center; and ad hoc but nimble service support. Specific requests included consultations, development and trainings for various comfort levels of instructors, a clear catalog of what to get where, cooperation with local support, a list of resources.
Connection and Collaboration
Another dominant theme across all five groups was the need for and understanding of connection and collaboration. Primarily, participants from the groups wanted other units to be collaborative with the center, to figure out how to connect across boundaries, and how to leverage and build relationships. Four of the groups mentioned more collaborative work with staff in the colleges who are currently working on teaching and learning initiatives. Three of the five groups mentioned collaborative program opportunities, and two of the five groups mentioned a networked approach.
Teaching and Learning in Practice
The third theme that all five groups mentioned was what we are calling teaching and learning in practice. This encompasses a number of things, including teaching and learning in tenure and promotion, incentivizing teaching and learning, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. There was again the need for collaborative programming, this time with discipline specific colleges and with faculty who are experts in certain pedagogies or approaches. One group wanted to know what teaching and learning capabilities are available to help other educators, while another said that assistance with aligning course level objectives, assessments, and curricula with the institutional practices and the resources of the center would be useful. The Academic Unit Administrator and the Faculty group both had incentivizing teaching and learning as something they’d like to see from the center and center staff. There also was an overarching theme of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) but none of the groups made it their top priority-it did emerge as a theme though, so important to highlight here.
Minimum Viable Product Reviews 
The “minimum viable product” activity was framed as a Yelp review session. Participants were paired in teams of two and asked to take on the perspective of an educator who had worked with the Center for T&LI and had a positive experience. Throughout the 17 combined Center “reviews” the following were the top ten most mentioned themes/services. Within each of these areas, participants in the 01/14/2022 Kick-off Summit mentioned a range of examples (i.e. Center experiences [per activity instructions]). High level captures of examples for each are included below. 
Coaching/Consultation (Feedback, Support, Emotional Support)
Almost 65% of the reviews mentioned some version of coaching or consultation (including additional keywords such as feedback, support, guiding, and helping). Some examples of topics and underlying services within this category include: restructuring programs, refining crouse design, and reviewing curriculum; developing formative and summative assessments, transitioning to different feedback models, and integrating student voice; and finally combining theory and practice, integrating technology and pedagogy, as well as course alignment and student engagement.  
Pedagogy (Student Voice)
Over half of the reviews related to methods and practices for engaging in teaching. Examples of experiences and services related to this topic include but are not limited to: support and guidance for strategies, envisioning difference learning experiences, participating in design experiences to try new approaches to teaching and learning; integrate research and teaching; focus on student experiences, create supporting and effective learning experiences, create inclusive and welcoming spaces. 
Restructure/Redesign (Modality, Curriculum)
41% of reviews specifically called out redesign as a service of the Center. Examples of restructure and redesign (including topics of modality and curriculum) in the experience reviews include but are not limited to: moving face to face courses online (and planning for possible future transitions) and adapting class to a different structure (i.e. rubric or flipped models, competency-based learning outcomes, trauma informed teaching, asset based practices, etc.).
Student Experience (Engagement, Student-Centered)
41% of reviews mention the Center supporting them in ways that positively impacted student experience, student engagement, and student-centered design. Examples of this theme include: creating welcoming, supportive, and effective learning environments; reviewing curriculum and developing rubrics with respect to student engagement (and adjusting as necessary); and learning about theories of improving student connections to engage with them more effectively. 
Confidence (Empowered)
35% of reviews specifically denote improvements in educator confidence and empowerment after working with the Center. Topics where educators had this improved sense of ability and agency included student centered teaching and learning practices, creating supportive and effective learning environments, initiating collaborative partnerships, and general teaching and learning experimentation and implementation. 
Collaboration/Partnerships
35% of reviews emphasized the importance of collaborative partnerships with the Center across units. This ranged from individual consultations with faculty to full-scale curricular and program developments. The nature of these partnerships in terms of scope and focus varied in the reviews, but what remained consistent was the value that is derived from these relationships with the Center. 
Connection/Community
18% underscored the importance of connection to a network of educators through the Center and the community that is derived from it. This was mentioned in the context of relationships built with Center staff along with events where networking takes place. Sometimes, educators connecting with other educators can make a huge difference in their teaching as it provides essential opportunities for sharing what is being done and learned in one context to another. 
Assessment
Assessment was mentioned by 18% of the reviews as being an important piece of expertise that the Center can offer to faculty and programs at MSU. Of course, assessment comes in a myriad of forms and faculty are often seeking ways to improve on their assessment strategies and design.
Inclusion
18% of the reviews made mention of how consultative relationships with the Center could help them improve their efforts around accessibility and inclusion in their classrooms and digital learning environments. 
Research/SOTL (Scholarship of Teaching & Learning)
12% of the reviews mentioned various ways they envisioned that the Center staff could help them with their research and scholarship efforts. Examples were not provided in the reviews specifically, but we know that the approaches to research in the scholarship of teaching and learning in particular at MSU are vastly different from college to college and that the Center staff have a great deal of experience and expertise in these areas.

What is Hybrid Teaching and Learning?
Whether or not they think of this as “hybrid teaching,” most educators have their students do scholarly work between course meetings, such as preparing notes, completing a set of problems, drafting an essay, or reflecting on a previous project. Often this work uses digital technologies. This student work then becomes the focus of the next face-to-face (f2f) meeting (e.g. by having students take an exam, self-assess their work, give and receive feedback, conduct lab experiments, or revise their writing). While some might call these activities “homework” or “studying,” all educators recognize that well-thought out and structured learning outside the classroom can enhance the f2f experience and free up class time educators can use to provide feedback, facilitate conversations, point to resources, and model the kind disciplinary inquiry they are asking students to engage with. In short, the f2f experience better supports learning when educators provide well-designed lessons for students outside of the classroom.
 
If this is part of your practice, you are already engaged in the work of “hybrid” teaching and learning.
 
To be clear, hybrid teaching and learning: 

Includes online interaction among learners and between instructor and learners
Has significant instructor presence online throughout the course
Devotes significant classroom time to discussion and interaction between learners and instructor
Engages students in learning activities both online and in the classroom
Explicitly integrates online content and activities with in-class content and/or activities

Because “hybrid” courses substitute online work for some amount of f2f time, explicit, designed hybrid teaching and learning asks educators to be even more attuned to the work they provide students outside of the classroom. Kathryn Linder writes: 
 
Hybrid pedagogy is a method of teaching that utilizes technology to create a variety of learning environments for students. Instructors who employ hybrid pedagogies intentionally incorporate technology tools both to enhance student learning and to respond to a wide range of learning preferences. In hybrid classroom settings, face-to-face activities are often combined with technology-mediated activities so that there is more active learning in the face-to-face setting as well as more intentional guidance when students are learning outside the classroom. (11)
 
Consequently, the shift to hybrid teaching and learning requires being more mindful of the “way[s] that instructors can ensure that students are engaged with the course content by incorporating online learning communities, synchronous and asynchronous discussion, and a variety of online collaboration methods that encourage students to interact with the course materials, their instructors, and their peers in a variety of ways” (Linder 12). Thinking in terms of hybrid teaching and learning can open the opportunity for creativity regarding how to use our resources to best support our students’ engagement with the content, ourselves, and one another. 
 
At the same time, as members of the university community living through a pandemic, we are challenged to think creatively about how to use our teaching resources to support student learning. Hybrid teaching and learning, may be, depending on the context, one option to minimize risk and support learning, while still helping students benefit from key campus community resources. This short document is meant to help educators make the transition to hybrid teaching and learning. To help you imagine and design your hybrid course, we’ll provide a series of hybrid teaching “dos” and “don'ts” before supplying some examples from educators across MSU. The bibliography at the end of this document will also provide you with some additional resources to help you plan and design your course. 
Hybrid Teaching and Learning “Dos”
The following list is meant to provide you with a few starting points to help you plan your hybrid course. As you plan...

Do have clearly defined learning objectives (“After the completion of this course, students will be able to…”) and projects/tasks and assessments that move students towards the learning objectives.
Do choose course technologies that help you and your students achieve those learning objectives. 
Do scaffold your tasks, assignments, and projects. This means breaking down larger projects into smaller tasks while providing formative feedback and explaining how the smaller parts build towards the larger project. Students need and want to know why they are engaging in some task, as well as how they are doing as they complete the tasks. This will also help you to make decisions about what to do in an online space and in your face-to-face meetings.
Do give time for students to learn how to use and interact with your course technologies.
Do use your face to face meetings to practice, provide feedback, encourage collaboration among students, reflect on learning, and/or foster discussion. 
Do consider your students’ prior knowledge and experience, as well as the resources your students have available in their local learning context, such as their home, neighborhood, or community.

Hybrid Teaching and Learning “Don’ts”
The following list reflects a common set of concerns for faculty and educators as they design their hybrid courses. As you plan...

Don’t forget there are people on the other side of the technology.
Don’t forget to build community among students.
Don’t spend too much time worrying about the percentage of work done online versus face-to-face (even in f2f courses, the bulk of learning can--and often does--take place outside of the classroom). Learning objectives should guide the way: 

What do I want my student to learn? 
How will I know when students meet the learning objectives?
What activities, projects, tasks, etc. will help my students achieve those learning objectives? 
Which of those activities, projects, tasks, should be done in a f2f setting? Why? 
Which of those activities, projects, tasks, should be done in an online setting? Why? 

Don’t approach course design as though you’re simply “transitioning” some f2f components into an online environment. Rather, understand that the online component of a hybrid course deserves its own theorization and attention, as it will only increase the power of the f2f meetings. In short, well-thought out online learning can make the f2f meetings more focused on practice, feedback, revision, and active learning. 
Don’t forget about accessibility and ensuring your students have access to course materials.

Models of Hybrid Courses
The following list provides a set of models from MSU faculty across the disciplines. More examples will be added in the near future:

A first-year writing course from the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures
A sophomore and junior-level biomedical laboratory science course


A first-year general chemistry lab course in Lyman Briggs College
A series of Russian language courses
Sophomore level course for students with an interest in Communicative Sciences and Disorders, including the minor in CSD.

Resources and Further Reading
Online

Michigan State University - Community D2L site for experiential learning 


Hybrid Learning Consortium 
University of Central Florida - Blended Learning Toolkit (or BlendKit) 
Cornell - Getting Starting with Designing Hybrid Courses Online 
Penn State U - What is Hybrid Learning? 
University of Texas - Hybrid Learning and Teaching 
Northeastern University - 5 Reasons Hybrid Learning May be Right for You 
A11Y Project 

PDFs, Design Resources, and Articles

Jay McTighe and Giselle O. Martin-Kniep - Seven Strategies for Supporting Student Learning in a Remote Environment
Jay McTighe and Ronald S. Thomas - Backwards Design for Forward Action
Kathryn E. Linder -  Blended Course Design Workbook (contains useful worksheets for designing your hybrid learning course).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751606000492
James Lang and Flower Darby - Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes
Angelo, T. A. A “Teacher’s Dozen”: Fourteen General, Research-based Principles for Improving Higher Learning in Our Classrooms.” AAHE Bulletin, 45(8), 3-13.
Banditvilai C. “Enhancing Students’ Language Skills through Blended Learning.” The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 14(3), 220-229.

Marisa Brandt (Lyman Briggs), Michael Ristich (Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures), Amy Ward (Human Medicine), and Arthur Ward (Lyman Briggs)
 
Contributors: Rachel Barnard (Lyman Briggs), Rachel Morris (Biomedical Laboratory Diagnostics), Shannon Donnally Spasova (Linguistics & Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages), Lisa Kopf (University of Northern Iowa, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders)
 

MSU seeks new ideas aimed at improving the digital learning experience. Incorporating digital strategies to support pedagogy can enhance students’ learning experiences and offer efficiencies in assessment and analysis. Many digital learning innovations impacting institutional initiatives at scale often start small. Innovations may spring from novel pedagogical approaches in individual courses, as collaborative experiments across disciplines, or the result of student feedback and needs analysis. We recognize the value of providing support and resources to change the student experience for the better. MSU's Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation is committed to facilitating new ideas and announces the following call for proposals for the Catalyst Innovation Program.
Catalyst Innovation Program
The Catalyst Innovation Program seeks to fund creative and innovative uses of tools, technology, and pedagogical approaches up to $10,000 for the purposes of allowing experimentation in spaces with the potential to enhance student learning experiences.
Please note that these funds are intended to fund software, technology, and/or services but are not able to support salary lines, including faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate students. We are especially interested in proposals that include one or more of the following criteria:
Learning

Demonstrate learning, conceptual understanding, or increased content knowledge

Inclusivity and Accessibility

Increase access, as defined as “providing the means for all qualified, motivated students to complete courses, degrees, or programs in their disciplines of choice (Online Learning Consortium, n.d.; MSU Learning Design Strategy.)” For example, reduced or zero cost to students beyond tuition, universally designed experiences, and the like
Contribute to more equitable and inclusive digital learning experiences and environments
Experiences that are universally designed and accessible

Feedback and Adaptivity

Increase formative feedback (assessment for learning)
Provide learning analytics to educators to enable adaptive or personalized pedagogy
Provide mechanisms for student input and collaboration
Increase student engagement as defined by your discipline. For example as increased participation, collaboration, peer learning, and so on

Proposals
Proposals should include a description of the innovation and idea, implementation approach, evaluation and assessment plan, and budget. Click the following link to apply (Application closed)
Timeline

The Call for Proposals opens: December 16, 2021
Proposals are due: 5:00 pm EST, January 21, 2022
Awards will be announced: February 7, 2022
Once awarded, funding is available through June 30, 2022.  

Selection Criteria

Completeness of the idea proposal

Clearly explained potential impact on student engagement, mastery, or success
Challenge or shift current teaching and learning practices

Readiness to implement

Plan to implement during the funding period in an existing course or program

Opportunity for scale/re-use
Assessment and evaluation plan for your project
Proposed budget
Alignment with MSU Learning Design Strategy

Quality
Inclusivity
Connectivity


References
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/quality-framework-five-pillars/
http://lds.msu.edu

MSU seeks new ideas aimed at improving the digital learning experience. Incorporating digital strategies to support pedagogy can enhance students’ learning experiences and offer efficiencies in assessment and analysis. Many digital learning innovations impacting institutional initiatives at scale often start small. Innovations may spring from novel pedagogical approaches in individual courses, as collaborative experiments across disciplines, or the result of student feedback and needs analysis. We recognize the value of providing support and resources to change the student experience for the better. MSU's Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation is committed to facilitating new ideas and announces the following call for proposals for the Catalyst Innovation Program.
Catalyst Innovation Program
The Catalyst Innovation Program seeks to fund creative and innovative uses of tools, technology, and pedagogical approaches up to $10,000 for the purposes of allowing experimentation in spaces with the potential to enhance student learning experiences.
Please note that these funds are intended to fund software, technology, and/or services but are not able to support salary lines, including faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate students. We are especially interested in proposals that include one or more of the following criteria:
Learning

Demonstrate learning, conceptual understanding, or increased content knowledge

Inclusivity and Accessibility

Increase access, as defined as “providing the means for all qualified, motivated students to complete courses, degrees, or programs in their disciplines of choice (Online Learning Consortium, n.d.; MSU Learning Design Strategy.)” For example, reduced or zero cost to students beyond tuition, universally designed experiences, and the like
Contribute to more equitable and inclusive digital learning experiences and environments
Experiences that are universally designed and accessible

Feedback and Adaptivity

Increase formative feedback (assessment for learning)
Provide learning analytics to educators to enable adaptive or personalized pedagogy
Provide mechanisms for student input and collaboration
Increase student engagement as defined by your discipline. For example as increased participation, collaboration, peer learning, and so on

Proposals
Proposals should include a description of the innovation and idea, implementation approach, evaluation and assessment plan, and budget. Click the following link to apply: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cSa6sOXdRCQxPtc
Timeline (Extended deadline)

The Call for Proposals opens: April 29, 2022
Proposals are due: 5:00 pm EST, June 3, 2022
Awards will be announced: June 15, 2022
Once awarded, funding is available through December, 2022.  

Selection Criteria

Completeness of the idea proposal

Clearly explained potential impact on student engagement, mastery, or success
Challenge or shift current teaching and learning practices

Readiness to implement

Plan to implement during the funding period in an existing course or program

Opportunity for scale/re-use
Assessment and evaluation plan for your project
Proposed budget
Alignment with MSU Learning Design Strategy

Quality
Inclusivity
Connectivity


References
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/quality-framework-five-pillars/
http://lds.msu.edu

2025 Educator Seminars are presented by MSU IT Educational Technology, MSU Libraries, the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI), the Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative (EDLI), and MSU IT Training​. 
Day 1: August 21, 2025
Instructions: Click on the registration link and sign-up for the sessions you're interested in. After completing your registration you will receive an email with the Zoom link for the session. Any questions or concerns contact us at ITS.FallEducatorSeminar@msu.edu.

8:30 - 9:30am    Spartan 365 Overview
Facilitators: Michael Julian & Lindsey Howe (IT Training)
A live training session that will introduce learners to the suite of software that will help users store data, collaborate, and work efficiently. Spartan 365 has powerful tools that allow users to get more done with Microsoft apps like Outlook, Forms, OneNote, and OneDrive.
Registration Link

9:30 - 10:30am    MSU’s generative AI guidelines
Facilitators: Jeremy Van Hof (CTLI)
Join CTLI for a practical workshop unpacking MSU’s generative AI guidelines and exploring how they impact course design, instruction, and assessment. Participants will consider implications for academic integrity, student learning, and pedagogical decision-making.
Registration link

10:30 - 11:30am    Creating Your Scholarly Presence with KCWorks and MSU Commons
Facilitators: Kristen Lee and Larissa Babak (Libraries)
Registration Link

11:30am - 12:30pm      BREAK

12:30 - 1:30pm     Classroom Technology Overview: Maximizing Student Learning and Engagement Across Modalities
Facilitators: Sarah Freye and Lisa Batchelder (IT&D)
Registration Link
 

1:30 - 2:30pm    OneDrive - Getting Started
Facilitators: Michael Julian & Megan Rozman (IT Training)
A live training session that will introduce the essential functions of OneDrive, the go-to app for storing data and synchronizing it across other Microsoft applications. Learn how to ensure that work is saved, backed up, and available wherever and whenever access is needed.
Registration Link

2:30 - 3:30pm    D2L Brightspace Essentials: Navigation, Gradebook Creation, and Structuring Accessible Content
Facilitators:  Dr. Jennifer Wagner and Dr. Cui Cheng (IT&D)
Registration Link
 

ChatGPT FAQ for MSU Educators
This Q&A is for educators who are interested in learning more about using ChatGPT in higher education. Use this list to learn the basics on how this technology can enhance teaching and learning experiences while also addressing concerns related to its potential misuse.
There are other chatbot platforms that existed before ChatGPT, such as Jasper.ai for marketing and creative content. There are also competing platforms that quickly entered the market following ChatGPT, such as Google Bard and Bing Chat. Many of the answers below also apply to these other AI platforms.
We are focusing on ChatGPT because of how often educators around the world are discussing its potential for disrupting current teaching and learning practices.

What is ChatGPT?
What can ChatGPT do and not do?
Can I trust ChatGPT?
How can I access ChatGPT to try it out?
What is ChatGPT Plus?
Are there tools that detect ChatGPT writing?
Does Turnitin detect AI generated text?
Are there other MSU supported tools that use AI?
What other tools can I use to compare AI detection results?
Is there a university policy on the use of AI tools like ChatGPT?
Is there a recommendation for how to address the use of AI tools in my class?
How can I improve the output from ChatGPT?
Could AI chatbots potentially create issues of digital equity for students?
What are the privacy concerns associated with using AI in education?
What is MSU doing and how can I stay connected with future developments?

Q1: What is ChatGPT?
A: ChatGPT is an AI chatbot that was launched by OpenAI in November 2022. GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer. It is based on a Large Language Model (LLM) that checks for the probability of what words are likely to come next in a sequence. It is not the same as a search engine because it generates responses on the fly from a vast data source. The model is trained to sound like natural language and is optimized for dialogue. 
Q2: What can ChatGPT do and not do?
A: What ChatGPT can do:
ChatGPT can generate text related to natural language processing, including, but not limited to, answering questions, translating text from one language to another, providing writing assistance by proofreading, editing, and offering suggestions, generating content (e.g., writing an essay, creating a story or poem, summarizing a long article, brainstorming ideas), and engaging in conversations. The tool can also be used to generate and edit code.
In the context of higher education instruction, some educators have already started experimenting with ChatGPT for developing curriculum plans, learning activities, various types of assessments, and rubrics, as well as providing feedback on students’ writing. Students might use ChatGPT to explore different learning topics, get editing suggestions on their written work, brainstorm ideas for projects, and even generate responses to quizzes, exams, and essays, some of which would raise academic integrity issues.
What ChatGPT cannot do:
ChatGPT does not access current websites for information, and according to its statement of limitations, ChatGPT has “limited knowledge of world events after 2021,” and “may occasionally generate incorrect information” and “harmful instructions or biased content.” It is not very accurate at listing citations/references and all output should be checked, as it often makes things up. However, processes are improved with GPT-4 and results may change significantly with new versions over time.
While ChatGPT can create new content based on the data it has been trained on, it still lacks the ability to generate truly original ideas or solve complex problems that require higher-order thinking and creativity. Even though ChatGPT can assist with providing feedback on student work, it is important to note that OpenAI recommends against educators relying on ChatGPT, as giving student feedback involves possible decision making and complex, context-based considerations. See Educator Considerations for ChatGPT for more details of OpenAI’s discussion on the use of ChatGPT in education. 
ChatGPT can be used as an assistant for designing, developing, and teaching courses, but it is not a substitute for educators’ teaching expertise. The best way to learn about its capabilities and limitations is to experiment with ChatGPT within your specific teaching context.
Q3: Can I trust ChatGPT?
A: Ensuring that AI-driven data is accurate and unbiased is very important. The model’s output can sound convincing, but it doesn’t “know” what it is saying and will at times make things up. It is not a substitute for human expertise, judgement, and responsibility. Educators and students need to critically evaluate the information generated by ChatGPT. In practice, assume there are inaccuracies and possible biases (see OpenAI’s FAQ and the given limitations statement).
Ensuring that the collected data is secure and used ethically is also a major challenge. Avoid entering sensitive information. Do not provide any student information or student grades to ChatGPT, as it may be a FERPA violation for disclosing educational records to a third party without the student’s written consent.
Q4: How can I access ChatGPT to try it out?
A: The free version, GPT-3.5, is available at chat.openai.com. Sign up with an email address or Google account. You can create multiple sign-ins to use for work or personal use by using a different email. The sign-up process will ask for a phone number and send you a code for verification. You can use the same phone number for the verification process.
After signing up, go to chat.openai.com/chat. There is a text input field at the bottom where you will enter your prompt. Select “Regenerate response” for another version and scroll through the numbers to the left of the prompt to view each version. Continue refining your results by giving subsequent prompts or start a new chat from the menu on the left. You can edit chat labels or delete them by selecting the item in the menu. If you find an answer is incorrect, you can provide feedback by using the "Thumbs Down" button.
Q5: What is ChatGPT Plus (ChatGPT-4)?
A: ChatGPT Plus (ChatGPT-4) is available with a $20/month subscription. The upgrade provides better access during high demand, faster responses, and priority access to new features. One of the new plugins recently adds web browsing for more current data. GPT-4 surpasses ChatGPT in its advanced reasoning capabilities and can solve difficult problems with greater accuracy. You can access it from the menu options after signing up for the free version.
Q6: Are there tools that detect ChatGPT writing?
A: There are tools that claim to be able to detect AI generated text (e.g., Turnitin, CheckGPT, GPTZero). However, keep in mind that the only evidence is the presence of statistical markers about the likelihood of word patterns. It is possible for human writing to fall along similar patterns, leading to false positives, and it is also possible to produce AI-generated responses that go undetected, leading to false negatives. As of Aug. 1, no reliable detector has been identified, and the detectors that are widely available have been shown by multiple studies to be biased against English language learners and people with disabilities (e.g., GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers by Liang et al. and A study of implicit bias in pretrained language models against people with disabilities by Venkit et al.). Do not assume AI detectors are giving you absolute facts (see Can AI Generated Text be Reliably Detected by Sadasivan et al.), rather let them guide you in addressing concerns with students. 
The best approach is to have a conversation with the student about whether, how, and why they used the tool. For example, an international student may have entered their own work to polish up language structure. Some students may not know using the technology constitutes academic dishonesty, or to what extent they are allowed to get AI assistance if it hasn’t been mentioned explicitly.Be careful how you approach students and consider refraining from mentioning the use of AI detectors as a threat. “The use of these tools to evaluate student text can increase students’ anxiety and stress (both of which have been found to inhibit learning), while also creating an atmosphere of distrust.” [source: Evaluating Student Text with AI Text Detectors]
Bottom line, dedicate some classroom time to educating students about AI and what you consider to be misuse in your class. Have open discussions about its benefits and limitations. Help students understand the downsides of relying on it and emphasize the importance of developing their own writing abilities.
Q7: Does Turnitin detect AI generated text?
A: Turnitin has its own AI writing detection tool, however, it was removed from within the tool on our D2L instance due to concerns over bias and unreliability. Turnitin acknowledges that false positives and false negatives are possible. Again, as of Aug. 1, no reliable detector has been identified, and the detectors that are widely available have been shown by multiple studies to be biased against English language learners and people with disabilities (e.g., GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers by Liang et al. and A study of implicit bias in pretrained language models against people with disabilities by Venkit et al.).
Turnitin Disclaimer:
“Our AI writing assessment is designed to help educators identify text that might be prepared by a generative AI tool. Our AI writing assessment may not always be accurate (it may misidentify both human and AI-generated text) so it should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student. It takes further scrutiny and human judgment in conjunction with an organization's application of its specific academic policies to determine whether any academic misconduct has occurred.”
See the following for more Turnitin resources.

Turnitin’s AI Writing Detection FAQ
Academic integrity in the age of AI
AI conversations: Handling false positives for educators

Return to the Turnitin AI writing resource center for educators periodically to find current articles on this rapidly evolving topic.
Q8: Are there other MSU supported tools that detect AI?
A: Packback is an MSU supported AI tool that monitors student work. When using the Packback discussion tool, students are notified when AI generated text is detected, and guidance is provided on how to use AI tools with integrity. See the article, "Post may have been generated by AI" Reason for Moderation.
Packback also has a free AI detection tool called CheckGPT that can be used even if you don’t use the discussion feature, Packback Questions. CheckGPT will analyze a piece of text and suggest using what you learn to help create teaching moments with your students about ethical use and the importance of academic honesty. The tool author intentionally tuned CheckGPT towards a low false positive.Be aware that as of Aug. 1, no reliable detector has been identified, and the detectors that are widely available have been shown by multiple studies to be biased against English language learners and people with disabilities (e.g., GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers by Liang et al. and A study of implicit bias in pretrained language models against people with disabilities by Venkit et al.).
Q9: What other tools can I use to compare AI detection results?
A: Some other tools being used include GPTZero, Hive Moderation, and AI Text Classifier. Try submitting your own original work, as well as AI generated results, to get a better understanding of the differences between tools.
GPTZero is a free AI detection tool for educators that is finetuned for student writing and academic prose. You can analyze pasted text or upload files. There is also a separate product with a similar name called ZeroGPT.
Hive Moderation has an AI detection tool that will score the likelihood of generated text by segment. On top of an overall score, results include which engine created an image and which segment of text has the most probable artificial content.
If you search the internet, you will likely find many others (e.g., Top 7 Best Plagiarism Checkers For AI-Generated Content). Experiment with the different tools to get a feel for their usefulness within the context of your teaching. Use the tools as a point of discussion, rather than considering them as proof of misconduct, which may not be the case. Due to the unreliability, it is unclear whether detection has an advantage in the long-term as all have disclaimers.
Q10: Is there a university policy on the use of AI tools like ChatGPT?
A: On August 1, 2023, the Office of the Provost at MSU posted the Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidance, and Technology at MSU also shared an Interim Guidance on Data Uses and Risks of Generative AI. Check for related policies within your college or department. Consider explaining the new university guidance, existing academic integrity policies, and your approach to the use of AI tools in your course syllabus. 
MSU policies and resources related to academic integrity:

Spartan Code of Honor
Integrity of Scholarship and Grades
Student Rights and Responsibilities Article 7
MSU Campus Resources for Academic Integrity

Q11: Is there a recommendation for how to address the use of AI tools in my class?
A: Generally speaking, educators have been responding to the rise of AI tools by either resisting or adapting (see ChatGPT and AI Text Generators: Should Academia Adapt or Resist). Resistors may see more issues than benefits in using AI for teaching and assessing students. They prohibit, bypass or discourage the use of AI tools by returning to in-person pen and paper assessments or using AI detection tools to detect AI generated content. Educators who take a more adaptive approach will likely see more benefits of using AI in teaching and learning and the need of better preparing students for the challenges they will face in a post-AI world. Of course, how you address the use of AI tools in your course depends on your specific teaching context and course goals. An instructor teaching writing classes and an instructor teaching AI-related courses are likely to take different approaches.
In your course syllabus, make your expectations clear on whether students can use AI tools,  what students can use them for, what students should not use them for, and whether they need to explain how they have used them. The more detailed your expectations are, the less likely students will misuse these tools.
Carefully (re)design your course activities and assessments, whether you are embracing AI tools or discouraging the use of them in your course. Consider designing activities or assessments that encourage higher-order thinking, critical thinking, and creative thinking (e.g., reflection activities or essays, activities that develop critical digital literacy, work that focuses on process over end-product, and real world, ill-structured problem-solving), which are essential for successful learning and resistant to students’ misuse of AI tools. Below are several resources for designing activities and assessments in the age of AI:

Five ways to prepare writing assignments in the age of AI by Turnitin
New modes of learning enabled by AI chatbots: Three methods and assignments by Ethan and Lilach Mollick, University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School

Q12: How can I improve the output from ChatGPT?
A: You can improve the output with targeted prompts and subsequent tasks, such as defining the structure type (essay, email, letter, blog, lesson, assignment, quiz, rubric, list, table, outline, etc.) and tone (professional, heartfelt, humorous, in the voice of a celebrity, for a fifth grader, etc.). You can give the chatbot a role and a task (prompt: “you are a college professor teaching __, write a ___ about ___). You can continue improving the output by providing more context details.
You can also train the model by providing a dataset of your own. It will not read text from a website by providing a url (try it sometime to see the model make stuff up). You will have to paste in the text with your request. For example, prompt ChatGPT to give you a summary of … “paste in article text” or ask for a list of discussion questions to give to students from the copied article text. If you want something more concise, give a subsequent prompt to “make it shorter”. If the text appears to have cutoff at the end, you can extend the length by telling ChatGPT to continue from “paste in the last sentence.” For more, see Open AI’s guide on prompt design.
Q13: Could AI chatbots potentially create issues of digital equity for students?
A: Using AI technology in the classroom may lead to unequal access for students. Those with slower internet speeds or no internet access at home may face disadvantages. Additionally, those who pay for subscriptions may have better access and results. Students at schools that prohibit the technology may also be at a disadvantage. However, AI technology can help alleviate inequity in some cases, such as assisting international students with grammar and improving communication with instructors. It can also provide academic support for students without access to private tutors.
Disclosure: The above paragraph was rewritten with the help of ChatGPT. The original is listed below.
The prompt given was simply “Rewrite: If you allow and even encourage the proper use of AI technology in your classroom, students will not all have the same level of access. Students who experience slower internet speeds or have no access to the internet at home may face a disadvantage. Additionally, during peak usage times, the free version may not be readily available. Those who pay for a subscription will have an advantage with better access and improved results. Students from schools that prohibit the use of the technology may find themselves disadvantaged relative to those who were trained to use it as a tool. The technology may help to alleviate inequity in other cases, such as helping an international student polish their grammar or improve communication with an instructor. Students without access to private tutors can potentially get assistance with their studies.”
Both versions are provided to give you an example of using ChatGPT to improve or shorten a piece of writing.
Q14: What are the privacy concerns associated with using AI in education?
A: The company collects information from you and/or your students when signing up for an account. Entering personally identifiable information related to your students in a prompt would be a FERPA violation because prompts may be reviewed by AI trainers to improve their systems. See the privacy-policy for more details. Instructors who are embracing the technology as a learning tool may be creating assignments that specifically encourage its use. However, students who are concerned about privacy issues may be reluctant to use the technology. Consider creating an alternative assignment for those cases.
Q15: What is MSU doing and how can I stay connected with future developments?
A: MSU offered a university-wide AI Symposium in February 2023, followed by on-going conversations within departments and academic programs around the topic. For example, there was an AI/IAH Workshop on April 14, 2023 (resources are posted on iTeach). Other AI coffee talks were posted on the MSU Library calendar. The MSU Spring Conference in May had sessions on the topic, as well as the EdTech Summit in June, 2023 MSU Educational Technology. Check with your department and the following areas to keep up on the latest developments.
iTeach & CTLI (Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation)

Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (and Learning)
AI & Education Group – login to find the group and join the growing list of members.
MSU’s Spring Conference on Teaching and Learning - May 2023
Using AI in Teaching & Learning iTeach playlist

EDLI (Enhanced Digital Learning Initiative) and Broad College

Short Overview of ChatGPT for University Faculty By Jeremy Van Hof, Eli Broad College of Business, MSU
Quarterly Newsletter Apr 2023

OSSA (Office of Student Support & Accountability) and MSU Policy

When It Comes to Academic Integrity, Even ChatGPT Has the Answer By Jake Kasper, Office of Student Support & Accountability
Office of Student Support & Accountability

Spartan Code of Honor
Integrity of Scholarship and Grades
Student Rights and Responsibilities Article 4
MSU Campus Resources for Academic Integrity



Spartan Newsroom and MSU Today

Are teachers ready for the rise of Artificial Intelligence? - January 20, 2023
What if AI helped write a commencement speech? ComArtSci 2023 commencement

Additional Resources:

Educator Considerations for ChatGPT By OpenAI
ChatGPT Updates and FAQ By OpenAI
ChatGPT General FAQ By OpenAI
AI Chatbot FAQ By Western Carolina University
ChatGPT & Education By Torrey Trust, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Academic integrity in the age of AI By Turnitin
White Paper: How Academia is Adapting to Generative AI
How to Productively Address AI-Generated Text in Your Classroom By Indiana University Bloomington

Currently, there is an explosion of tools integrating Chat AI tools. For example, Quizlet has a new tool called Q-Chat, Khan Academy recently developed Khanmigo, and Grammarly introduced a ChatGPT-style AI tool. On a humorous note, there is CatGPT (not a typo). More guidance and updates are likely to follow this getting started FAQ.Originally posted: May 2023Updated: Nov 2023

Thinking about Assessment
The focus of our Febuary workshops is assessments, whether formative or summative and exams, essays, or projects. We are hosting three workshops for faculty and two open "tech support" Q&A webinars for students. The faculty workshops will each be offered once. The recordings shared by email to all registrants and also posted to either the D2L Instructor Self-Directed Training site or the MSU Tools and Technology site, as noted in the workshop description.
 
Building and Conducting Exams in D2L (Desire2Learn) 
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 90-minute workshop, we will provide detailed demonstrations of how to build an exam in the D2L Quizzes tool, show how to customize submission views, and briefly touch on exam security measures. The workshop recording will be posted to the MSU Instructor Self-Directed Training site (link below).

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAod-qprTMoEt3tlcNQUPDO1wdKGG1ZD2O- 


For a more immediate how-to resource, please refer to the MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L, which has a module with step-by-step walkthrough videos on how to use the D2L Quizzes tool. 

 
Strategies and Tools for Formative Essays and Projects
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 1 p.m. 
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss strategies and technologies for formative assessments, including D2L rubrics, TurnItIn, and Eli Review. We will have faculty speakers share their experiences and philosophies regarding when & why they use formative assessment and what they have found valuable about it, then engage in peer discussion within smaller groups. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies "course".

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwodO2gqD8jHtN5cK8TNCsIaL83HST_vbGv 


For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following: 




MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies. 
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop 
The MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L has a module on using the D2L Rubrics Tool 



 
Tools for Grading Summative Essays & Projects
Tuesday February 9, 2021, starting at 10 a.m. 
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss when and why to use Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk to administer and grade summative, non-exam assessments such as essays and projects. This workshop will include brief presentations by faculty who have used these technologies in their courses, followed by informal peer discussion. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies course. 

Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwscuqhqjMsGtX7S0Quya3mLxYhPG7sTse7 


For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following: 




MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies. 
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop 
This iTeach article with a feature comparison of Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk 



 
Technology Q&A for Students
Friday February 12, 2021 and Monday February 15, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
These 90-minute webinars are open tech support time for students, especially for any concerns about upcoming online exams or assessments. Students can submit questions through their registration form, anonymously in the webinar Q&A area, and in the webinar chat area. 

Registration link for Friday Feb 12, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Vk-kFbZZQ4W7zUs8gkkZRw 
Registration link for Monday Feb 15, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zNhhPU0qQq2e9dZDjbS2HA