We found 347 results that contain "instructors"

This collection of example statements are a compilation from a variety of sources including Faculty Learning Community (FLC) at Cleveland State University, Ohio University’s AI, ChatGPT and Teaching and Learning, and some of Michigan State University’s own educators! (If you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.edu). NOTE: making your own course-level determination of "ban", "restrict", "permit", or "require" and using the sample language is the best, first place to start!
 “AI (artificial intelligence) resources such as ChatGPT can be useful in a number of ways. Because it can also be abused, however, you are required to acknowledge use of AI in any work you submit for class. Text directly copied from AI sites must be treated as any other direct quote and properly cited. Other uses of AI must be clearly described at the end of your assignment.” -Claire Hughes-Lynch
 “While AI tools can be useful for completing assignments and detecting plagiarism, it is important to use them responsibly and ethically. Practice based on these guidelines as a future or current K-12 teacher. The following are some guidelines for what not to do when using AI in your assignments and for plagiarism detection:

Do not rely solely on AI tools to complete assignments. It is important to understand the material and complete assignments on your own, using AI tools as a supplement rather than a replacement for your own work.
Do not use AI tools to plagiarize*. Using AI to generate or modify content to evade plagiarism detection is unethical and violates academic integrity.
Do not assume that AI responses are always correct. It has been noted that AI can generate fake results.* Please see the plagiarism/academic integrity policy in the course syllabus.” -Selma Koc

“Intellectual honesty is vital to an academic community and for my fair evaluation of your work. All work submitted in this course must be your own, completed in accordance with the University’s academic regulations. Use of AI tools, including ChatGPT, is permitted in this course. Nevertheless, you are only encouraged to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. It is solely your responsibility to make all submitted work your own, maintain academic integrity, and avoid any type of plagiarism. Be aware that the accuracy or quality of AI generated content may not meet the standards of this course, even if you only incorporate such content partially and after substantial paraphrasing, modification and/or editing. Also keep in mind that AI generated content may not provide appropriate or clear attribution to the author(s) of the original sources, while most written assignments in this course require you to find and incorporate highly relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications following guidelines in the latest publication manual of the APA. Lastly, as your instructor, I reserve the right to use various plagiarism checking tools in evaluating your work, including those screening for AI-generated content, and impose consequences accordingly.” -Xiongyi Liu
“If you are ever unsure about whether collaboration with others, including using artificial intelligence, is allowed or not, please ask me right away. For the labs, although you may discuss them in groups (and try using AI), you must all create your own code, output and answers. Quizzes will be done in class and must be solely your own work. You alone are always responsible for the correctness of the final answers and assignments you submit.” - Emily Rauschert on AI as collaboration partner
“Chat GPT: The use of Chat GTP is neither encouraged nor prohibited from use on assignments for GAD 250. Chat GPT is quickly becoming a communication tool in most business settings. Therefore, if you choose to use Chat GPT for assignments, please be sure to revise the content for clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. Chat GPT is simply a tool and should not be used as a way to produce first and only drafts. Every assignment submission will be graded using the rubric provided in the syllabus. Be aware that Chat GPT may not develop high-quality work that earns a passing grade. It is your responsibility to review and revise all work before submitting to the instructor.” -Leah Schell-Barber for a Business Communications Course
“Use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing-Chat, must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and adhere to the OU Code of Student Conduct.  The use of Generative AI should be seen as a tool to enhance academic research, not as a replacement for critical thinking and originality in assignments. Students are not permitted to submit assignments that have been fully or partially generated by AI unless explicitly stated in the assignment instructions. All work submitted must be the original work of the student. Any ideas garnered from Generative AI research must be acknowledged with proper in-text citation and reference. Students may be asked to save the AI chat as a PDF file for verification.” -Ohio University College of Business Generative AI Use for Academic Work Policy
“‘The policy of this class is that you must be the creator of all work you submit for a grade. The use of others’ work, or the use of intelligent agents, chat bots, or a.i. engines to create your work is a violation of this policy and will be addressed as per MSU and Broad College codes of conduct.’ - Jeremy Van Hof… Or, you might consider this, which I asked ChatGPT to write for me: ‘Sample Policy Language: Students should not use ChatGPT to complete course assignments or for any other academic activities. ChatGPT should be used as a supplemental resource and should not replace traditional academic activities.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting) 
Or this much longer version, also written by ChatGPT: ‘The following course policy statement prohibits the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the’ completion of assignments and activities during the duration of the course. At the Broad College, we strive to create an academic environment where learning is the foremost priority. We strongly believe that learning is best achieved through the hard work and dedication of our students. As such, we prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the completion of assignments and activities during the course.  Our policy is in line with our commitment to providing a fair and equitable learning environment for all students. We believe that AI should not be used to substitute human effort, as it defeats the purpose of our educational goals, which are to encourage critical thinking and problem-solving.  We understand that AI can be a useful tool in many contexts, and we do not discourage its use in other courses. However, in this course, we will not accept assignments or activities that have been completed through the use of AI. We expect our students to be honest and to complete their work independently.  We will be monitoring student work closely to ensure compliance with this policy. Violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary sanctions. All students are expected to adhere to this policy and to abide by the standards of the University.’ (ChatGPT per Jeremy Van Hof’s prompting)” -Jeremy Van Hof, Broad College of Business
“I study AI. I research it in my role as faculty in the Experience Architecture and Professional & Public Writing majors. And I don’t think it’s inherently bad or scary, in the same way that a calculator isn’t bad/scary for math. Artificial intelligence technologies such as ChatGPT can be an excellent starting point and a place to begin inquiry. But they are not a replacement for human thinking and learning. Robots lack empathy and nuance. As such, here is my policy:
You may use AI as a tool, but you may not use AI to replace your own beautiful brain. That means that you may ask ChatGPT, for example, to give you a list of bands similar to one that you hear and appreciate in this course. You may ask ChatGPT to give you an overview of a punk scene in a geographic location at a particular time. You may ask it for the history of punk rock and punk cultures. You may ask it what happened to Sid Vicious. 
But you may not ask it to write on your behalf, and you must not turn in anything that has been written by ChatGPT and pass it off as your own for any assignment in this class, including discussion responses, papers, and exams. If you do so, I will know, and that will lead to an uncomfortable moment–and to you failing the assignment.
This is not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to reinforce how much I value you and your ideas and your intellect. In a face-to-face environment, we would have a lengthy conversation about AI, ethics, and human learning. If you want to have that conversation, I’m happy to do so via Zoom–email me!” -Kate Birdsall, asynchronous US23 course on punk-rock politics"The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the interior design program is permitted with certain tasks and with attribution: You can choose to use AI tools to help brainstorm assignments or projects or to revise existing work you have written. For example, AI-generated concepts can serve as a starting point for exploration but must be substantially transformed and personalized by the student. When you submit your assignment or project, you must clearly attribute what text or images were generated by any form of AI content generator. You must save and submit to the instructor draft assignments or sketches that document your progress and originality. Final papers, projects, and design submissions must reflect the student's original work, ideas, and expression. By adhering to these guidelines, students will develop a balanced understanding of AI's potential in interior design while maintaining the integrity of their individual creativity and expression. Any misuse or misrepresentation of AI-generated content as one's own work will be considered a violation of academic integrity. Violations will be subject to disciplinary actions as outlined by MSU’s academic integrity policies. If you are unsure about whether something may be plagiarism or academic dishonesty, it is your responsibility to ask your instructor for clarification or assistance. This policy is subject to change based on the instructor's discretion. Any updates will be communicated to students through course announcements." -Linda Nubani & the Interior Design Faculty at MSU School of Planning, Design & ConstructionIf you have an example generative AI policy from your course that you’d be willing to share, please add it to the comments below or e-mail it to MSU Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation at teaching@msu.eduPhoto by Alessandro Bianchi on Unsplash 

Title: Rise: A Tool to Building Interactive Online CoursesPresenter: Erin Bosch-HannahFormat: Learning Tech DemoDate: May 11th, 2023Time: 10:00 - 11:15 amClick to hereDescription:Rise is a course authoring software allowing instructors to quickly build online courses that are structured easily with high levels of interactivity. This technology helps change passive online learning to active engagement. The tool is asynchronous, allowing students to utilize their course at any time without the need for the instructor to be present. Assessments can be built in and it is compatible with all devices and most Learning Management Systems. This platform is user friendly, student oriented, and instructors can use a mixture of videos, voice recordings, quizzes, timelines, descriptive photos, and other modules. The amount of features and interactivity can be altered in each module, making for new and exciting learning experiences.Educators can quickly convert their existing content into Rise, allowing their students to interact with the material through several different learning styles. By incorporating additional activities that utilize the content in Rise, an increase in retention is often noticed since material is used frequently. Rise easily allows instructors to scaffold content through lesson sections and multiple educational blocks. Labeled graphics, tabs, processes, timelines, and sorting activities encourage students to proceed through information in an organized manner. These activities encourage connections and associations since students have to manually access the content and apply the information to the next section.

 
Outlined Learning Objectives.
Up until this point, this guide has mostly focused on the instructor listing topics as opposed to objectives. While listing topics has a form of value, the topics may not communicate exactly what you hope students can achieve at the end of the course. For this reason, as much as possible an instructor should consider changing course topics to learning outcomes: concise statements describing the skills or abilities a student should have at the end of a course/unit.
 
Tips for writing learning objectives:

Begin each objective with the phrase, “After participating in this session, students should be able to…”

This is not how it may be phrased in your syllabus but will hopefully provide an effective brainstorming session on how to transform topics into objectives.


Choose verbs that are indicative of specific, measurable and observable behaviors which match desired level of knowledge or skill:

“Recall…”
“Describe…”
“Evaluate…”
“Create…”
Etc.


Write them as an outcome, not as a task.

Your objective should describe what students should be able to do/know as a result of the course/unit.
For example:

“Write a reflection on ______ .” is a task, not an outcome.      





 
Teaching Methods.
Each instructor has their own approach to teaching. The general version of this approach has most likely already been listed in your syllabus. However, now you should consider how well your approach fits with the methods described in the syllabus itself and your goals as an educator. Here are some examples of teaching methods and why you may choose to use them. Reflect on what your own teaching method is and how it is incorporated throughout your syllabus.
 

Lecture-based learning:

Common for large groups, introducing a new topic, or delivering a complex lesson. This type of learning can be efficient for covering large amounts of information; however, it may decrease student engagement and encourage passive learning if done frequently.


Discussion-Based Learning:

Common for encouraging critical thinking, covering literature, philosophy or subjects that would benefit from multiple and diverse viewpoints. This type of learning can help promote active participation and deeper levels of understanding but can be time-consuming and run the risk of being dominated by a few participants if not moderated properly.


Inquiry-Based Learning:

Common in science and project-based learning, or areas where exploration is prioritized. This type of learning hopefully fosters curiosity and independent learning, however, relies heavily on student motivation so it requires heavy facilitation and planning.


Problem-Based Learning:

Common in applied fields such as medicine or engineering which rely on problem solving capabilities. This type of learning strongly develops analytical skills and problem solving but can be extremely challenging for students not used to open-ended tasks and is often affiliated with burnout.


 Flipped Classroom:

Commonly used to engage students in higher-order thinking during class-time as opposed to presenting information. Ideally this will increase active learning and engagement during class but requires access to technology and relies on student motivation outside of class.


Differentiated Instruction:

Common in mixed-ability classrooms, this teaching method is tailored to different student learning styles, needs, and abilities. It is inclusive and student-centered, which may increase student/teacher relationships, but demands heavy planning and flexibility on the part of the instructor.


Montessori Method:

While more common in early development, this teaching technique encourages students to select activities from a range of options, which can encourage independence and self-motivation; however, it requires access to a lot of material and an extensive amount of planning from instructors.



 
Assessment Strategies.
Following the guide through each step means you already have some type of description of your assessments provided. Take this time to explain your strategy and reasoning behind those assessments.
 
Support
Be reflective of how you manage and support students in your class:

What implicit biases are built into your class and syllabus?

What is your stance on ableism?
Are their social/political motivations embedded in the syllabus?


Does your syllabus benefit one student over another?

If students are struggling financially, would that impact their ability to access resources for your class?
If students had a form of neurodivergence, how would that affect their performance in your class?
Do you favor one type of student over another?


What accommodation are you providing for students?

Here are some to consider:

Notes? Recorded Lectures? Audio recordings? Online attendance options?
Physical copies of materials? Electronic ones?
Extended test time? Alternate Test Locations?
Links to additional resources?
Assistive technology? Preferential seating?





 
Here is the time to demonstrate how you teach, set that clear expectation for students, and flesh out what it means for them to be in the class. 

 
“It’s not what you know, but who you know.” is one of the largest colloquialisms when it comes to career trajectory. In addition, a big part of attending higher education is to help propel student careers. While we may want to prepare students by just giving them the necessary knowledge for their future endeavors, we should also strive to take this time to help establish connections and reasonable paths forward for them as well.   
 
Engagement/Participation:
Student engagement is defined by how actively and enthusiastically students are involved in the learning process during class.  Meanwhile, participation refers to actual involvement of the students. So, it is possible for:  

A student may participate and not be engaged,
Or a student to be engaged but not participate.

This is important to consider when defining your pedagogical approach to classroom engagement and participation, and how you define it within your class. If you plan to award student participation, or your class heavily relies on discussion and active student engagement, you may even want to provide these definitions in the syllabus.
 
However, you may not directly explain these ideas and instead focus on whether ask these questions of your syllabus:

Does your teaching style facilitate your views of participation/engagement?
Is your syllabus communicating whether you want students to participate?
Is the syllabus itself engaging for students?
Do your assessments reflect your goals for participation/engagement?
In what ways is your syllabus contributing to student participation and engagement?

 
Peer-to-peer Interaction 
Students working together is crucial for learning and development. It helps students build necessary social skills, establish relationships between current/future colleagues, increases active participation and engagement and often increases student self-efficacy towards the course topic.
 
Therefore, it is encouraged that you construct course materials that facilitate peer-to-peer interactions and foster some sense of community within your classroom. As far as what to include in the syllabus, you should specify what types of activities you will hold that require peer-to-peer interactions, and what expectations you have of students during these interactions.
 
For example, the syllabus may contain:

A list of classroom rules that you or your class develops:

Developing them yourself lets you be in control of exactly what values you want accentuated in your class.  
Developing them as a class can communicate that students have autonomy over their learning and increase classroom engagement.  


Examples of peer-discussion techniques you use:

Whole Group Discussions:  

Ask your class to consider a question/topic and facilitate a group discussion on the topic, allowing students to speak freely and challenge one another.


Think-Pair-Share:

Ask students to individually consider a question/topic, discuss it with a partner, then share their insights with the whole class.


Mingle-Pair-Share:

Similar to think-pair-share, except students can move freely about the class and have discussions with multiple students.


Discussion Groups:

Breaking students into smaller groups to hold discussions on a question/topic, which can then be brought into larger group discussions.


Jigsaw:

Break down a larger topic into smaller pieces and allow each group to focus on an individual piece to share out in a whole class discussion.


Collaborative Assignments:

Students work together in small groups to develop material specified by a rubric or find solutions to laid out problems.


Socratic Seminar:

This is an open discussion based on an assigned set of readings. Instead of generating a question or specific topic you want students to consider, just allow them to openly discuss the material and explore at their own pace.





                               
There are numerous other ways you may facilitate peer-to-peer relationships and communication, but however you choose to do so, it is helpful to communicate that to students upfront and through the syllabus.
 
 
Instructor-Student Interaction:
Fair or not, how students reflect on course material, or a specific subject, largely depends on their (impression of)/ (relationship with) their teacher. For this reason, it’s important to have a positive relationship between an instructor and their student. The syllabus, again especially as a first impression, can help facilitate this relationship and help an instructor feel more approachable. For this reason, it’s important that your syllabus:

Sets a welcoming/positive tone:

Clearly communicate your enthusiasm for the course and the students participating.
Set expectations but don’t dictate them.
Include words with positive connotations

As an example, instead of describing student work as “acceptable” consider saying it is “valid” or “commendable”


Avoid negatives (such as “do not” or “unable to” as much as possible)


Encourages engagement:

You’ve explained what types of engagement you’re looking for, but now it is important to encourage that from students. To do so:

Give examples of your interactive content.
Engage in storytelling by sharing personal details you feel comfortable sharing.
Ask for and encourage student feedback.
Be authentic.




Promotes your own availability:

One of the leading reasons students don’t attend office hours is because they feel they are “awkward.” To break through this barrier, you might:

Explain the value office hours provide students:

Promote the benefits such as improved understanding and better test scores.
Highlight success stories


Offer flexible scheduling for office hours.
Consider Location/Modality:

Are you available via video or only in-person?
If in-person, where are you available to meet and how accessible is that to the students?


Set one-on-one meetings during the semester.

These can be informal and short to get students familiar with the process, or perhaps there is a specific purpose tied to the meeting.







 
Students who feel more comfortable with their instructor tend to perform significantly better in a course and have a stronger sense of confidence in their own ability. Fostering this relationship is one of the most crucial for the educator to create a positive classroom environment.
 
Provide Connections:
With the goal in mind that students attend college to increase career success, it is important to use our abilities and connections to help them achieve it. This will appear vastly different depending on the field of study, and possible career paths, but here are some forms this may take:
 
Connect students with other faculty: Perhaps another member of the department or institution you know has better connections that align with a student’s career aims, or areas of interest.
 
Have guest speakers: You can’t know everything, and having a guest speaker can help students gain exposure to the community around the topic they’re studying and form meaningful connections with them.
 
Utilize connections in the field: You more than likely studied this material at your own university/had a job in the field. Consider connecting students to relevant contacts or having them be a guest speaker.
 
Ask Alumni: If you’ve had students who have gone into the field, especially if you’ve stayed in contact with them, consider having them be a guest speaker or asking them to explain how your class helped prepare them for industry. What types of things could you change in your class to help make this transition more effective?
 

Introduction
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. MSU purchased a campus subscription to the QM Rubric to assist faculty and instructors in creating quality courses that will improve online education and student learning. The initial pilot of using the rubric to inform course design started as an MSU partnership between the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, College of Arts & Letters, and MSU Information Technology. Currently, MSU maintains its full subscription status on a yearly basis which provides access to the fully annotated QM Rubric and the QM Course Review Management System (CRMS). Additionally, MSU IT Academic Technology consults with faculty and instructors on applying QM standards to their courses and developing new approaches in online and blended learning.
The MSU QM Course Review Process is a faculty-driven, peer review process that emphasizes continuous quality improvement. The QM reviewers experience and review a course from a student perspective and provide feedback based on the Quality Matters Standards. See IT Instructional Technology & Development for information about course development and see IT’s Academic Technology Service Catalog to learn more about QM at MSU. 
Our course review process consists of three parts: 

a self-review done by you to get familiar with the course review process on the MyQM system. 
an internal review by a peer-reviewer to provide initial feedback on the course design. 
after any necessary changes are made and the course has run, a copy of the course can undergo an official review conducted by a team of three QM Reviewers (Master Reviewer, Subject Matter Expert and one additional Reviewer) resulting in Quality Matters Certification [cost $1,000].

Whole programs can also be QM certified whose courses have been peer-reviewed. Information on QM program certification can be found on QM’s website. 
Getting Started
Anyone at MSU can create an account through the Quality Matters website by using their msu.edu email address.
Quality Matters provides a fully annotated course standards rubric, different types of course reviews including a self-review, and discounted QM professional development through its website and MSU’s subscription.
Some of the Quality Matters resources involve added costs and official course reviews require MSU consultation first.
Course Rubric
The QM Rubric is a research-based peer review process that is widely adopted in higher education as a measure of online course quality. It offers weighted best practices in online instruction to improve course quality.
Visit the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition to download the rubric.
The rubric is helpful as a tool to consider what elements may be missing from an online or blended course or to generate suggestions for new features.
Self-Review First
Faculty and staff can use the fully annotated, self review materials, within the MyQM CRMS (Course Review Management System). Annotations explaining each standard in greater detail can be accessed within the Self Review tool after logging in to the QM site.
This unofficial self review is a way to become more familiar with QM standards or assess a course prior to an internal or official review. You can also do pre- and post- assessments of your courses to keep a record of improvements, and a private report can be emailed once completed.
What to expect in a peer-review?
The internal and official review are almost identical. Both generally consist of the following steps:


Pre-Review Discussion


Team chair (Lead Reviewer in an internal review) contacts review members and faculty member to set up a conference call or face-to-face meeting at the beginning of the review. The purpose of the conference call/meeting is to discuss the instructor worksheet, ensure that all members have access to the course, establish the team review timeline, and answer any questions from team members before the review begins.


Review Phase


The review begins. Each team member logs into the QM Rubric website and uses the online rubric tool to record their observations about the course. Remember that you are reviewing the course from the student’s perspective. If you have questions during the review, don’t hesitate to contact your team chair.


Post-Review Discussion


Upon completion of the review, the team chair will call for the final conference. This conference will be among the review team members to discuss any discrepancies in the review and to ensure that recommendations are helpful and effective.  All individual reviews will be submitted after this meeting to compile the final report.


Post Review – Revise Course (as needed)


The team chair will submit the final review to the Campus QM Coordinator through the online QM tool. The review findings will be shared with the course instructor who then has an opportunity to respond to the review (using the course Amendment Form in the QM site). If the course does not yet meet standards, the faculty course developer/instructor works to bring the course to standards (with the assistance of an instructional designer, if desired). The review team chair then reviews the changes and determines whether or not the changes move the course to QM standards. In an internal review, revisions are made before submitting for an official review.
Steps for Internal Review
It is good practice to complete a self-review of your course before submitting for internal or official review. This is an optional step and only you see the self-review responses. For a self-review, log into the CRMS (Course Review Management System) on the QM website and use the Self Review tool to conduct a review of your own course.
When you are ready to submit a course for internal review:

Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response. 
Make a copy of your course to be reviewed.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.

Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select Internal Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the worksheet once it is approved.

Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews: Open Course Reviews

Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number. 
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information. 
When finished, click “Submit Complete Worksheet.”

Your course will automatically be assigned to a Lead Reviewer who will contact you regarding the course review.
After your review, you may make any necessary changes to your QM Review course as a result of the internal review.
This review is an unofficial course review that provides feedback on meeting the QM Standards before submitting for QM recognition.

Steps for Official Review
When the course is ready for the official review:

Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response. 
Faculty will use the updated copy of the course that was used in the internal review. 
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.

Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select QM-Managed Review as the review type. 
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the Course Worksheet once it is approved.

Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews, Open Course Reviews. 

Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
If you completed an internal review inside the CRMS, you can copy your internal review worksheet.

MSU staff will add the QM review team to the QM Review Course. This can take up to two weeks.
The Course Representative (faculty course developer/instructor) meets virtually or by phone with the QM review team for a pre-review meeting.
A QM Review is scheduled for a 4-6 week review period, which includes approximately 3 weeks of actual review time in addition to pre- and post-review conference calls.
The QM Team Chair will submit the final report which will be sent to the Course Representative.
Once the standards are met, Quality Matters recognition is provided to the Course Representative and the course is listed in the QM Recognized Courses registry.

Recertification Review
Certified courses are reviewed and re-certified after five years.
Resource Links

QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition
QM at MSU Community: Faculty and staff at MSU can join this D2L Community site to learn more about the QM Rubric, discounted professional development, and course examples for meeting standards.
Quality Matters website: Create an account using your msu.edu email and access the self-review tools on the MyQM site.

The Setting the Tone from the Start workshop and its associated resources are meant to support course instructors to intentionally design the start of their courses, including practices for before and during the first class session that help connect you to your students and build community. In August 2024, it was held as part of the CTLI's Semester Start-Up programming for MSU educators. We shared actionable strategies that lay the groundwork for an engaging and inclusive course experience from day one including items related to:

syllabi, expectation setting, and pedagogical transparency
checking in on learner needs throughout the term
building classroom community

We ended the workshop by completing individualized Action Plans where instructors listed their next steps (immediate, during the semester, and before next semester) framed as S.M.A.R.T. goals. You can adapt this Action Plan for a mid-semester context, as well as prepare for the next term.You can access the slide deck for this workshop here including links to many MSU resources for course instructors.A recording of the Fall 2023 version of this workshop, facilitated by Makena Neal and Ellie Louson, is available below.Feel free to reach out to CTLI Educational Developers Ellie Louson and/or Bethany Meadows (Inclusive Pedagogy Specialist), if you have any questions about Setting the Tone from the Start or these resources.Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash

Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash
 
The key to successfully implementing cooperative learning is aligning it with learning objectives. Cooperative learning activities aren’t extras, but essential steps toward optimal learning. Some topics could include concepts that will be emphasized on the exam, big ideas for the day, and items that are difficult  for students to master. The better integrated these activities are, the easier it will be to select approaches that meet your overall course objectives.
It may seem like an intimidating task to implement cooperative learning in a lecture-based course. Completely redesigning a course involves significant time and effort, and graduate student assistants often don’t have the freedom to dictate the classroom structure. The good news is that cooperative learning can be incorporated into courses in small, low-stakes ways. The following are three strategies that can be integrated into your curriculum next semester and accomplished within 5-15 minutes. I would suggest starting here:
 
Think-pair-share
Instructors pose a question or discussion topic (e.g., “Based on what you know about global wind and ocean currents, describe why the wave height in the Southern Ocean is an average of two meters higher than in the Equatorial Pacific”). Instructors then give students individual reflection time to process the question and to think about their answer. Following this silent period, students are then asked to pair up with another student to discuss their answer and to resolve any differences (if there is a correct answer to the question). The class can then come together as a large group once again, and the instructor can call on individual groups to share their discussions. This approach encourages students to explore and demonstrate their understanding of key concepts prior to a high-stakes exam in a way that is not possible in a lecture format.
 

Bonus: The pair step is a great opportunity for the instructor to walk throughout the room to monitor the discussion groups and connect with students on a more individual basis. The share step can be used to assess the distribution of ideas among students and identify sticky points that may require additional attention. This approach also allows students to speak up in class after vetting their thoughts with another student, which helps to decrease public speaking anxiety.

 
Minute Paper
Similarly to the think-pair-share activity, instructors pose a question or discussion topic. Instructors then provide time (typically under three minutes) for students to write down their ideas . This could be specified as anything from a “brain dump” (e.g., “Discuss the  factors that dictate the growth of algae in the Arctic Ocean”) to a more structured form (“e.g., How would you design an experiment to measure the effect of temperature and light on algal growth in the Arctic Ocean?”). Students can then team up into small groups to discuss their answers and come to a consensus or perspective on the major ideas from the question. Following small group time, a few groups can be asked to report out to the whole class about their discussion.

Bonus: Positive interdependence can be achieved by assigning group members specific roles (e.g., recorder, checker, task manager, and spokesperson). These roles can be rotated each time the activity is used to allow students to practice each communication skill.

 
Jigsaw
This learning strategy works well for course concepts that can be split up into separate yet interconnected parts. Each part thus represents a piece of the puzzle, and the complete puzzle requires each individual piece to be complete. The jigsaw approach is split into two steps: the expert group meeting and the jigsaw group meeting. In the expert group meeting, instructors  split students into small groups that are each assigned one part of the relevant content. Expert groups are assigned to discuss their “puzzle piece” and to achieve a consensus or mastery of their component. Expert groups are then dissolved and new jigsaw groups are formed, made up of one person from each expert group. In the jigsaw group meeting, each “expert ambassador” has a chance to report to the group about his or her piece of the puzzle. Jigsaw groups are then assigned the task of connecting each component to form a complete picture of the concept. 

Bonus: Keep in mind that this method, while rich in discussion opportunities, requires the most logistical planning and organizational support of the three strategies outlined. For further reading, see https://www.jigsaw.org.

 

The following is a list of the educators receiving the #iteachmsu Educator Award from the College of Social Science. For more information on these awards, check out the article entitled "#iteachmsu Educator Awards".

Christina DeJong: Dr. DeJong has gone above and beyond what is necessary (or even expected) of an instructor and mentor in the 4 years I have been her student. She has strived during class time to make the materials understandable, acknowledging that different students come into the class with different levels of understanding; made class projects useful in applying practical skills; and tailored assignments to help students succeed (including giving practice writing for social science publications). She also focuses on important and often under-prioritized issues within the field of Criminal Justice (e.g., trans issues, sexual assault, genocide). She is so open and kind that no question feels to silly to ask, even in advanced statistical courses, and she has made herself available outside of class like no other instructor I have ever had. For example, she put on a summer course-- completely of her own time and volition-- to help students learn "R" the statistical analysis software, merely because it is a free software she thought might be useful to us upon graduation if we didn't have the same resources we have at MSU. Finally, during the beginning of Covid-19, even when the School and University weren't sure what was happening, she personally reached out to students to see how they were doing, and arranged an online teaching forum and meetings for current graduate student instructors, again, entirely on her own time and of her own volition. She also provides space for students to touch base with her and with one another, which, during this incredibly unsure and isolating time is truly invaluable. I can not speak highly enough of her, and believe that her hard work should be recognized and emulated in every department at MSU. 

Skylar Dewitt: Skylar is very hardworking and does a tremendous amount for our lab. She is also very genuine and kind.

Eddie Boucher: Thanks for helping me learn how to use Mediaspace! It is intimidating to learn something new and I appreciate your tutorial

Lindsay Ackerman: Lindsay is always working to give our lab a positive atmosphere, help out RA's, and keep our study running. I am inspired by how much she does with a smile and how she is always happy to talk or answer questions.

Sean Hankins: Sean is just an awesome teacher. His passion for teaching and helping others always shines through and makes learning the material so engaging. I love how welcome he makes his students feel.
Anyone can recognize a fellow Spartan for their contributions to MSU's teaching and learning mission or for how they made a lasting impression on your experience. All you have to do is click "Thank an Educator" in the left panel of iteach.msu.edu. From there you'll see a short form where you can enter the name, netID, and a short story of the educator you'd like to recognize.