We found 203 results that contain "innovation"

Michigan State University was an early leader adopter of an integrative studies approach to undergraduate general education. Unfortunately, this program has experienced structural changes that resulted in a significant increase in class sizes for ISS classes in particular. As a result, instruction in these classes has become largely didactic, and in many classes, student assessment is primarily measured through high-stakes, multiple-choice exams. For so many MSU students, this passive pedagogical approach leaves them disengaged and disinterested. The question remains: How can ISS faculty facilitate engaged and project-based interdisciplinary curriculum with the current scale of their large-format classes? It is in this context and around these challenges that this project takes shape, and with the support of a Hub Faculty Fellowship in 2020-2021, we set out to bring innovation to ISS. Over the course of three semesters and amidst mandated remote online learning, our instructional team designed and implemented a meaningful, engaged, interdisciplinary, and team-based research project into an ISS general education course (with enrollments of 300 students) on the broad topic of Material Culture Studies. For the course project, students were required to explore a complex integrative research topic of their choice related to Material Culture Studies. Their research developed within weekly benchmark steps and culminated in the production of a short documentary film over their chosen topic. All student films were then showcased in an end-of-semester virtual student film festival. The course project design and the student outcomes and experiences with this project are the focus of our presentation. Our research proposal team includes the ISS professor of the class, two teaching assistants (both who completed the film project as students in SS20), and three participant students (all who created films in FS20). Together with our various positionalities, we propose to present the findings of this innovative ISS pedagogical research in the form of an academic poster—a common format to present preliminary findings of a research project that is still in progress. Additionally, we will embed into our poster a link to our team-produced short film that documents this guiding course project in engaged digital storytelling within an ISS general education course. We hope this film will demonstrate that we are pedagogically practicing what we preach to our students.To access a PDF of the "ISS Innovation: Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education" poster, click here. Please note: This poster contains embedded videos that are accessible via the PDF or below. 
The title of this poster is:  ISS Innovation:  Documentary Storytelling as Engaged Learning in General Education. 
This poster contains several sections. The first section outlines the research problem and purpose and provides a brief literature review on the topic. This section ends with the articulation of the guiding research question. 
The second section is a table that describes the research methods and data collection choices for the project. This is followed by the third section that provides a detailed iconic logic model of the data analysis scheme for the research project. 
The fourth section presents selected findings from the project. There are three major findings presented, and accompanying each of the findings is a short YouTube video/film that was produced by the research team to give the viewers a comprehensive picture of the guiding course ISS project that this pedagogical research investigates.  
ISS Innovation: Active and Engaged Learning
Culturally Responsive CurriculumMotivating Creative Risk Taking
There are links to the associated film festival that showcases the documentary films that MSU students in the ISS class produced as their guiding course projects. The poster has a brief conclusion section and a references section. 

The Catalyst Innovation Program funds creative and innovative uses of tools, technology, and pedagogical approaches for the purposes of allowing experimentation with the potential to enhance student learning experiences with just-in-time awards. This has helped to nurture a spirit of collaboration and creativity that is laying the groundwork for adoption of new technologies. So without any further adieu, it my pleasure to announce the Summer cohort for 2023:



Adam Gacs and Shannon Quinn



Linguistics, Languages, CulturesExpanding Access to Interactive Learning Experiences Inside a Familiar LMSJisun LeeInterior Design, School of Planning, Design and ConstructionImplementing immersive VR-Ready stations in interior design studios to advance students’ spatial ability and creative performanceRebekah BlessingArt History and DesignExploring the intersection of physical and virtual: Integration of 3D scanning technologies into AAHD Foundations Learning and Augmented or Virtual Exhibitions in Kresge Art Center
 

The Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI) announces a new round of Catalyst Innovation Program (CIP) recipients for Spring 2022. This program funds creative and innovative uses of tools, technology, and pedagogical approaches for the purposes of allowing experimentation with the potential to enhance student learning experiences with just-in-time awards. It is with great enthusiasm that I present the Spring 2022 Catalyst Innovation Program recipients:Brad WIlcuts, Daniel TregoTheatreNew Media Performance LaboratoryJon FreyDepartment of Art, Art History, & DesignOpening New WindowsJudy Walgren and Megan KudziaJournalism/Digital Scholarship LabUnlocking 360-degree video production for the MSU Library's 360-degree theaterLinda NubaniSchool of Planning, Design, and ConstructionIntegrating eye-tracking and facial expression technology to evaluate the impact of interior design students’ projects on the well-being of users Quentin Tyler MSU ODEI, MSU School of Planning Construction and Design, and MSU ExtensionA Mile in My Shoes; A Continuation of Virtual Reality Confronting BiasStephen ThomasThe Office of the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education (APUE)Broadening access and increasing representation among MSU’s Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs) through software management, LA Campus.Sunil Chakrapani and Jenifer SaldanhaElectrical and Computer Engineering and Biological Sciences programQR code-based instruction in engineering and biology laboratoriesSusan McQuistonBiomedical Laboratory DiagnosticsAccess to Flow Cytometry data analysis enhances student learning, preparation, and engagement in diverse medical and research applications in preparation for future careersThis is the first award cycle since the formation of the CTLI. Grantees are already benefiting from the CTLI’s integration with the MSU Library through consultations with talent and expertise found in the OER Team, Makerspace, and Digital Scholarship LabMSU’s Chief Digital Academic Officer Brendan Guenther points to the rapidity with which innovation happens, and how structures must adapt - “Catalyst awards give us a rapid investment lever for individuals in the #iteachMSU community, when they sense the need for innovation and have an inspired idea, we can give them the boost needed to make something happen without waiting for the next annual planning cycle.”As the year progresses, we will share stories to keep you updated on the progress these projects are making. Our goal is to empower our recipients to experiment, learn and share that knowledge with the rest of the MSU educator community. If you missed this application cycle, the next opportunity will be available late Spring 2022. Get your ideas ready!

The Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation aims to support educators across MSU's ecosystem with a "library" of student-facing surveys for collecting formative feedback, checking in with learners, and setting the tone for your learning experience. Google Forms can be used to design anonymous surveys, providing long-form or multiple-choice questions, basic Likert-scale answer keys, and basic statistical data. CTLI Student Feedback (google drive folder) offers pre-made forms to reduce barriers to educator use. Additional information about putting these forms into practice can be found on iteach.msu.edu. Existing forms for duplication currently include:

mid-semester feedback
post-crisis check-in 
pre-semester technology and access
group agreements (for in-class group work)*
pre-semester accessibility needs/preferences
weekly student check-ins (example 1 and 2)

*not anonymous  
CTLI’s survey templates require some edits and modification.
Users of the Google Form are asked to Copy the Google Form to their own Google Drive (while logged in with their MSU credentials) so that the form and collected data is owned by the user. 
Instructions for copying a Google Form from the "survey library":

Right click on the CTLI Google Form you’d like to send to your students. Click Make a Copy.
Open your copy of the Google Form and review the instructions embedded in the Google Form itself. Please review the survey headers and descriptions in their entirety. The Google survey templates are built in a way that the instructor can quickly and easily update the information to individualize it to their course.
When you have completed your edits, click the Send button in the right-hand corner of the Google Form. To maintain anonymity, please ensure that the “Automatically collect respondent's Michigan State University email address” checkbox is unchecked.

For the Group Contract Form, anonymity is unnecessary. 


Select the link or the HTML embed link as options to send your survey. Please note that sending the survey via email will deanonymize the survey. 


Please direct questions on process or access to Makena Neal. 
Photo by Philip Strong on Unsplash

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

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.

Topic Area: Pandemic Pivot
Presented By: Mina Shin, Ross Chowles, Yanjiang Teng
Abstract:
Travel is on a halt but international engagement and exchange don't stop under the pandemic. The Visiting International Professional Program (VIPP) continues advancing international education and professional exchange by developing innovative virtual programs during the pandemic. Our business model was based on in-person programs for the past 30 years but the pandemic pushed us to completely makeover our operation and reimagine international engagement in a creative way. In our presentations, we will share our experiences of running three successful online programs – 1) the fee-for-service professional development program for the South Korean government 2) the digital marketing, online virtual winter school program, for both MSU and international students 3) and the U.S. Department of State-funded exchange program for international professionals. Developing virtual programs for audiences living in different continents and time zones requires creativity while implementing the programs needs careful down-to-the-minute planning. This joint presentation between the VIPP and the Department of Advertising and Public Relations will focus on the challenges and rewards of running online programs. Our success story demonstrates how international exchange can continue in a virtual realm and bring value to all institutions and individuals involved. One of the Korean students who participated in our virtual program testified: “it is a miracle that we all meet virtually and learn from each other.”
Session Resources:
VIPP Virtual Programs (PDF)
Borderless Ideas (PDF)
Student Support (PDF)

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